Carson v. Rathman
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 3/29/2013. (AHI)
2013 Mar-29 PM 04:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RAY LEE CASON,
JOHN T. RATHMAN,
Case No.: 2:11-cv-01011-CLS-JEO
This case is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (doc. 17), filed November 13, 2012, and “Petitioner’s Objection to
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Court Failed to Show
Consideration to Allow Petitioner to File the Response in Accordance to the October
29, 2012 Order” (doc. 19), filed November 29, 2012. The matter is now ripe for
The instant petition was filed on March 18, 2011, (doc. 1), and on May 18,
2011, the United States filed a response arguing that Petitioner could not raise his
claims, challenging his sentencing in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, in this § 2241 Petition.1 (Doc. 6). On July 30, 2012, the
See 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
magistrate judge entered an Order seeking additional briefing on the issue in light of
a directly applicable Eleventh Circuit case that had been decided since the parties
filed their initial briefs. (Doc. 10). The court gave the United States until September
14, 2012, to address the issue and Petitioner until September 28, 2012, to respond to
the government’s arguments. (Docket Entry dated August 15, 2012). When
Petitioner did not respond by the September 28, 2012, deadline, the court entered an
Order giving Petitioner until November 16, 2012, to file any additional materials.
(Docket Entry dated October 29, 2012). On November 5, 2012, Petitioner filed his
response. (Doc. 16). On November 13, 2012, the magistrate judge entered the instant
Report and Recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed. (Doc. 13).
On November 16, 2012, Petitioner filed an additional response to the court’s October
29, 2012 Order. (Doc. 18).
In his objection to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner objects to the
fact that the magistrate judge entered the Report and Recommendation before
Petitioner’s November 16, 2012 response was received. (Doc. 19). Because
Petitioner’s second response was filed by the November 16, 2012 deadline, the court
will consider it now on its review of the Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner’s November 16, 2012 Response focuses on the issue of whether the
sentencing court erred when finding that a prior conviction was a crime of violence.
(Doc. 18). However, under Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011)
(en banc), the undersigned does not get so far as to address the merits of whether the
sentencing court incorrectly decided that the prior escape conviction was a crime of
violence. Rather, in Gilbert, the Eleventh Circuit clearly held that a petitioner cannot
invoke the savings clause of § 22552 to bring a § 2241 petition that argues “that the
sentencing guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a longer sentence not
exceeding the statutory maximum.” 640 F.3d at 1323. In other words, regardless of
the validity of Petitioner’s arguments concerning the error in his sentencing, he
simply cannot bring that challenge through 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The court has considered the entire file in this action together with the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s objections,
including Petitioner’s November 16, 2012 Response, and has reached an independent
conclusion that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is due to be
adopted and approved. Accordingly, the court hereby adopts and approves the
findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions
of the court. In accordance with the recommendation, the petition is due to be
dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order will be entered.
DONE this 29th day of March, 2013.
United States District Judge
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
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?