Young v. Taylor

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/2/2016. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2016 May-02 PM 03:39 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DAVID M. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TAYLOR, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01545-RDP-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner, David M. Young: (1) be construed as a Motion to Vacate, Amend, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) be dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge further recommended denial of a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 6). Petitioner has filed objections (Doc. 7) to the Report and Recommendation, two motions (Docs. 8-9), and a notice (Doc. 10) in the form of a letter to the court. Petitioner’s objections and other arguments do not change the fact that Petitioner is a federal prisoner attempting to challenge his federal conviction. Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments that the § 2255(e) savings clause applies—primarily based on the contention that President Nixon fraudulently scheduled marijuana—are unavailing. (See Doc. 7). Accordingly, while the instant matter was styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner’s only remedy lies in the form of a section 2255 motion. See Antonelli v. Warden, USP Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2008). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of Alabama, this court lacks jurisdiction over his section 2255 claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Partee v. Atty. Gen., Ga., 451 F.App’x 856, 858 (11th Cir.2012). Because Petitioner has previously filed a section 2255 motion, it is not necessary to provide him with an opportunity to amend or voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). For the same reason, and because Petitioner has not provided a certification from the Eleventh Circuit allowing him to bring a second or successive section 2255 motion, transfer to the Southern District of Alabama would be futile. After careful consideration of the record in this case, including Petitioner’s objections, motions, and other filings, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and ACCEPTS her recommendation. To the extent that Petitioner’s subsequent filings constitute objections, they are OVERRULED; to the extent the filings constitute motions, they are DENIED. Accordingly, the court finds that (1) this matter is due to be dismissed and (2) a certificate of appealability is due to be denied. A separate order will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this May 2, 2016. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?