Roberson v. United States of America
ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the District of South Carolina for all further proceedings re 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Kewan Roberson. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/16/18. (loh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Kewan Roberson pled guilty to violating the terms of his
supervised release, and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
Doc. 40 at 1-2 (Judgment); doc. 41 at 1. He explains that the same
conduct that violated the terms of his federal sentence also violated the
terms of his state probation. Doc. 41 at 4. The state court sentenced
him to serve the remainder of his sentence concurrently with his federal
sentence. Id. at 5. His current motion, filed on a form petition for relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeks “jail time credits for the time he spent in
federal detention awaiting to be transferred to the Bureau of Prisons.”
Id. at 5.
But § 2255 offers Roberson no relief here.
That section only
applies to challenge the propriety of the federal conviction or sentence
Instead of attacking the validity of his conviction, Roberson
challenges only its execution.
He therefore he must proceed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Barrio, 428 F. App’x 944,
944 (11th Cir. 2011) (“A claim concerning credit for time served . . .
should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
against the [Bureau of Prisons].”); United States v. Kinsey, 393 F. App’x
663, 664 (11th Cir 2010) (“[A]n action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence,
rather than the validity of the sentence itself. [Cit.] It [i.e., § 2241] is
the appropriate means by which an inmate may challenge the Bureau
of Prison’s (“BOP”) calculation and execution of his sentence.” (cites
omitted)). And this Court is not the proper forum for that claim.
Roeberson is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Estill, South Carolina. Id. at 1. “Section 2241 petitions
may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the
inmate is incarcerated.” Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488,
1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added); Kinsey, 393 F. App’x at 664
(“Unlike § 2255 motions, motions made pursuant to § 2241 must be
brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is
incarcerated.” (quotes and cite omitted)); Williams v. Rivera, 2011 WL
7005735 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2011) (collecting cases). Accordingly,
the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the District of South
Carolina for all further proceedings.
See 28 U.S.C. § 121 (“South
Carolina constitutes one judicial district . . . .”).
SO ORDERED, this 16th of April 2018.
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?