Dotson v. Beasley
ORDER adopting the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in all respects; granting Mr. Beasley's 7 motion to dismiss; denying as moot Mr. Dotson's 9 motion for extension of time to respond; and dismissing without prejudice Mr. Dotson's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus as this Court has no jurisdiction over Mr. Dotson's petition. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/18/2017. (ljb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
GLEN THOMAS DOTSON
Reg. # 33121-044
Case No. 2:17-cv-77 KGB
Warden, FCI-Forrest City Low
Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 10). Petitioner Glen Thomas Dotson
has not filed an objection to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, and the time
for filing an objection has passed.
Mr. Dotson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt.
No. 1). Judge Kearney recommends that this Court grant Respondent Gene Beasley’s motion to
dismiss Mr. Dotson’s petition (Dkt. No. 7).
Having reviewed the Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition, this Court determines that they should be, and hereby are, adopted as
this Court’s findings in all respects. Consistent with the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition, the Court grants Mr. Beasley’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7). The Court dismisses
without prejudice Mr. Dotson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1).
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Dotson’s motion for extension of time to
respond to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 9). The Court concurs with Judge Kearney that this
Court is without jurisdiction to address the substantive claims contained within Mr. Dotson’s
petition. The Court construes Mr. Dotson’s petition to assail the validity of his underlying
conviction: “Petitioner further asserts that the claims relevant to this submission concern recently
discovered in formation [sic] that clearly shows that judgment, sentencing and committal by the
Court in this case were based upon crimes different from those found by the grand Jury in his
indictment among other issues and claims.” (Dkt. No. 1, at 2).
As noted in the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, while Mr. Dotson seeks
to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2441, his claim is more properly construed as a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the
district court that imposed the sentence, not the district where Mr. Dotson is serving his sentence.
See Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2002); see also DeSimone v. Lacy, 805
F.2d 321, 323 (8th Cir. 1986). Mr. Dotson’s claims must be directed to the Missouri district court
that convicted and sentenced him, or to the appropriate Court of Appeals.
This Court has no jurisdiction over Mr. Dotson’s petition. Thus, having granted Mr.
Beasley’s motion to dismiss the petition, this Court denies as moot Mr. Dotson’s motion for
extension of time to respond (Dkt. No. 9).
It is so ordered this the 18th day of August, 2017.
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
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?