Phillips v. Ivey

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION: The Court GRANTS petitioner's 12 motion and will consider his late-filed objections. The Court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The Court finds petitioner's 8 Motion to Convert h is habeas petition to one invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be DENIED, respondent's 6 Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED; the 7 Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED as MOOT and petitioner's construed Mo tion to Strike Respondent's response to his habeas petition be DENIED. Finally, the court finds petitioner's § 2254 habeas petition is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the Court's lacks jurisdiction over his successive petition. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 3/11/2025. (AHI)

FILED
2025 Mar-11 AM 09:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
MATTHEW SHERMAN PHILLIPS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN CHILDERSBURG
COMMUNITY WORK CENTER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:24-cv-00395-LCB-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge entered a report (Doc. 10) on December 20, 2024,
recommending that the court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6);
dismiss without prejudice petitioner Matthew Sherman Phillips’s (“Phillips”) pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because this court
lacks jurisdiction over his successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);
and deny as moot the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7). The Magistrate
Judge further recommended that the court deny Phillips’s Motion to Convert his
habeas petition to one invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 8 at 4). On January 15,
2025, the court received Phillips’s Motion to File Belated Objection Through No
Fault of Phillips. (Doc. 12). Phillips asks this court to consider his late-filed
objections because he did not receive the December 20, 2024, Report and

Recommendation until January 6, 2025. (Doc. 12 at 1-2). The court GRANTS
Phillips’s motion and will consider his late-filed objections. (Doc. 12).
In his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Phillips repeats the
arguments he made to the Magistrate Judge. (See Doc. 13). He first argues the
Magistrate Judge erred in recharacterizing his pro se habeas petition brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to one invoking § 2254 because the Magistrate Judge
failed to issue the appropriate warnings beforehand. (Doc. 13 at 1-2, 4-5). As the
Magistrate Judge correctly explained in the December 20, 2024, Report and
Recommendation:
Castro [v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003)]’s requirements do not
apply to successive § 2254 habeas petitions. See Castro, 540 U.S. at
377 (holding “the court cannot so recharacterize a pro se litigant’s
motion as the litigant’s first § 2255 motion unless the court informs the
litigant of its intent to recharacterize, warns the litigant that the
recharacterization will subject subsequent § 2255 motions to the law’s
‘second or successive’ restrictions, and provides the litigant with an
opportunity to withdraw, or to amend, the filing” (first emphasis
added)); Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrs., 366 F.3d 1253, 1277
n.10 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The Castro decision does not extend beyond
initial filings, and nothing the Supreme Court said or did in that case
implies that the § 2244(b) restrictions can be evaded by the simple
expedient of labeling second or successive filings to be something they
are not.”); Ponton [v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs.], 891 F.3d [950,] 954
n.7 [(11th Cir. 2018)] (citing United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 980
(7th Cir. 2005) (“Castro’s warn-and-allow-withdrawal approach does
not apply [to successive petitions].”)); Brumfield v. Governor of Ala.,
No. 16-15811-B, 2017 WL 3977197, at *3 (11th Cir. June 1, 2017)
(Order) (explaining “[t]he remedy for a Castro violation is that the
recharacterized motion can no longer be considered a first motion for
purposes of applying the restrictions on second or successive motions
2

to later motions” (emphasis added)). As discussed below, Phillips’s
2024 § 2254 Habeas Petition constitutes a second or successive habeas
petition. Therefore, the court did not need to warn Phillips prior to
recharacterizing his § 2241 habeas petition as a vehicle invoking 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 10 at 28-29). The caselaw cited by Phillips in support of his argument is
inapposite to his circumstances as said case involved a district court’s
recharacterization of an initial filing to a habeas petition rather than a successive
filing. (See Doc. 13 at 4 (citing Parks v. McNeil, No. 4:07cv493/WS/MD, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 76570, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2009) (“[T]he Eleventh Circuit denied
the application [for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or
successive § 2254 petition] as unnecessary, explaining that because the [district
court] recharacterized petitioner's initial filing as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 ‘without warning him of the potential consequences of such
recharacterization or giving him the opportunity to withdraw or amend the
document;’ that recharacterized petition does not render a subsequent § 2254 petition
‘second or successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)’s restrictions.” (emphasis
added)), report and recommendation adopted by 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76568
(N.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2009)). Phillips’s objection on this basis warrants overruling.
Phillips next contends § 2254 does not govern his petition because he
challenges the execution of his sentence rather than his judgment of conviction. (See
Doc. 13 at 3-5). Binding Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses Phillips’s argument
3

as explained by the Magistrate Judge in his December 20, 2024, Report and
Recommendation:
That Phillips challenges the execution of his 2008 Sentences
rather than collaterally attacking his convictions or sentences does not
alter the finding that Phillips “is in custody pursuant to the judgment of
state court,” and thus, does not render § 2254 inapplicable to Phillips’s
current habeas petition. See Thomas [v. Crosby], 371 F.3d [782,] 787
[(11th Cir. 2004)] (finding “no merit” to petitioner’s argument § 2254
should not apply to his habeas petition because said petition did not
collaterally attack his state court conviction but instead challenged a
decision of the state parole board concerning petitioner’s parole
eligibility – “Section 2254 is triggered where a prisoner is ‘in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).”);
Medberry [v. Crosby], 351 F.3d [1049,] 1061 [(11th Cir. 2003)]
(rejecting petitioner’s argument that § 2254 “does not reach challenges
to the execution of a sentence” or “where the exact custody of which
the prisoner complains is a result of administrative proceedings . . . not
State court judgments” because “to implicate § 2254, the prisoner must
be ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’” and petitioner
“undeniably [was] in custody pursuant to the judgment of a [state]
court”); Wright v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 17-10903-G, 2017
WL 11767520, at *3 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2017) (“The instances in which
a state prisoner could bring a petition governed only by § 2241 are
limited to those instances where a state prisoner is not in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a state court - such as state pre-trial
detention.” (citing Medberry, 351 F.3d at 1060)); Singleton v. Norris,
319 F.3d 1018, 1022-23 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Section 2255,
governing federal prisoners, contains narrower language than that in §
2254, which governs state prisoners. The focus of § 2254 is on the
petitioner’s custody, not, as in § 2255, on flaws in the underlying
judgment or sentence. Thus, § 2254 is the only means by which ‘a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’ may raise
challenges to the validity of his conviction or sentence or to the
execution of his sentence.” (citing Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720, 72223 (8th Cir. 2001)); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484-85 (3d Cir.
2001) (holding that “[state prisoners] must rely on Section 2254 in
challenging the execution of [their] sentence[s]” because allowing a
4

state prisoner to proceed under § 2241 rather than § 2254 would “thwart
Congressional intent” as Congress restricted the ability of state
prisoners to file second or successive habeas petition pursuant to §
2244(c)).
(Doc. 10 at 25-27). Phillips’s objection on this basis warrants overruling.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge’s
report, and Phillips’s objections, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the
recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation, it is ORDERED that
Phillips’s Motion to Convert his habeas petition to one invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Doc. 8 at 4) be DENIED; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be
GRANTED; and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7) be DENIED as
MOOT. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Phillips’s construed Motion to Strike
Respondent’s response to his habeas petition be DENIED. (See Doc. 13 at 1).
Although Phillips contends the response contains “false and erroneous information
which is prejudicial and not based in law or fact,” the Respondent attached the
documents filed in another prisoner’s action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
to his response to demonstrate the appropriateness of filing a motion to dismiss – the
Respondent does not contend the documents relate to Phillips or the charges to which
Phillips was ultimately convicted. (See Doc. 5 at 9 n.1). The court finds Phillips’s
§ 2254 habeas petition is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

5

because this court lacks jurisdiction over his successive petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A final judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED March 11, 2025.

_________________________________
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6