Bradley v. United States of America

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 09/16/2013. (MSN)

FILED
2013 Sep-16 AM 10:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES BRADLEY, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01461-UNAS-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the court on James Bradley, Jr.’s “Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (Doc. 1). In his Petition, Bradley appears to challenge the legality of
his sentence, which was entered by this court. See United States v. Bradley, 2:93-cr-00152-LSCMHH. Bradley is currently incarcerated at FCI Butner Medium in Butner, North Carolina. (Doc.
1). On August 19, 2013, the magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why his petition
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 2). Petitioner did not respond.
The general habeas statute authorizes “district courts ... within their respective
jurisdictions” to grant writs of habeas corpus to prisoners who are “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jurisdiction to hear such
habeas actions challenging present physical confinement is generally limited to the federal
district court in the district in which the petitioner is confined. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 443-44 (2004). Here, Petitioner is confined in North Carolina, which is clearly outside of
the Northern District of Alabama. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Additionally, to the extent Bradley’s petition could be read as one to challenge his

conviction through 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court also lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner has previously
filed at least one § 2255 petition with this court, which was addressed on the merits (2:93-cr00152-LSC-MHH, Doc. 1158), and he has not received an order from the Eleventh Circuit
authorizing him to file a second or successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h); Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (per curiam).
Finally, to the extent Bradley seeks to challenge a prior ruling through FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 60, he has not indicated what prior ruling he is challenging, thus the court can
not discern whether such a motion is proper.
Accordingly, the court finds that the instant petition is due to be dismissed without
prejudice. A separate order will be entered.
Done this 16th day of September 2013.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

2