Meeks v. Graber

Filing 38

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 33 Report and Recommendations. Further ordered that the Petitioner's petition is denied. Further ordered denying 37 Motion to Amend Objection Number Six. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 12/20/11.(BAR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Robert Meeks,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Conrad M. Graber,
Respondent.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-0071-TUC-RCC (CRP)
ORDER

15

Petitioner Robert Meeks, who is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution-

16

Safford, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

17

(Docs. 10, 12). On August 31, 2011, the Honorable Charles R. Pyle, United States

18

Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action.

19

(Doc. 33). The Recommendation advised the Court to DENY the Amended Petition for Writ

20

of Habeas Corpus.

21

Petitioner thereafter filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 35). Petitioner

22

argues in his Petitioner and objections that Johnson v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010),

23

represents newly decided that renders him actually innocent of twice violating 28 U.S.C. §

24

924(c).

25

construing language in 28 U.S.C. § 924(e) and is inapposite to this case. He further

26

concluded the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this Petition because Petitioner’s

27

claim does not fall within the savings clause of § 2241.

28

Magistrate Judge Pyle disagreed because Johnson’s holding was limited to

1

Having reading Johnson and all other relevant authorities, the Court finds that is does

2

not constitute new law relevant to Petitioner’s convictions. Since Johnson is not new

3

relevant law, this Petition does not fall within § 2241's savings clause, and the Court does not

4

have jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner. Accordingly,

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Recommendation.
(Doc. 33).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition (Docs. 10, 12) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Objection
Number Six (Doc. 37).
DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-