Walker v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
ORDER: The Clerk is directed to dismiss the Petition, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 7/19/2013. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
LEONARD THOMAS WALKER
Case No. 5:13-cv-287-Oc-30PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN- MEDIUM,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
Petitioner, pro se, is a federal prisoner at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex
within this district. Petitioner initiated this case by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenges his convictions and sentences
imposed in the Northern District of Florida. See United States v. Walker, case no. 3:96-cr76.1 Petitioner seeks to “dismiss the indictment” in his criminal case. Petitioner also seeks
an order vacating the criminal judgment, nullifying his sentences, and immediate release
from incarceration. See Doc. 1.
In the Petition, the Petitioner attacks the validity of his convictions and sentences
rather than the means of execution. Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the sentencing court.2 Thus, it is clear that Petitioner is now pursuing relief in this
Court under § 2241 because filing a motion under § 2255 would be barred as a successive
A grand jury returned a two count indictment charging the Petitioner with conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine. Petitioner was convicted of both
counts, after a jury trial. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were
affirmed on appeal.
See case no. 3:96-cr-76 at Docs. 70, 75, and 85.
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, under these circumstances Petitioner is expressly
precluded by § 2255 from pursuing any remedies under § 2241. Section 2255(e) states that
an application such as this “shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed
to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court denied
To the extent that the Petition may be liberally construed as suggesting that Petitioner
is entitled to relief under the § 2255 “savings clause,”3 his arguments are unavailing.
Petitioner has identified no applicable Supreme Court decision that would open the door to
relief under the savings clause.
Accordingly, the Petition under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED prior to
service. See Habeas Rule 4 ("it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief...,"). Any of Petitioner’s allegations not specifically addressed herein have
been found to be without merit. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the Petition, terminate any
pending motions, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 19, 2013.
Under limited circumstances, a Petitioner may invoke the “savings clause” in § 2255 which permits relief to
be sought under § 2241 if it “appears that the remedy by motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of [the applicant’s] detention.” See Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 1999).
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?