Morris v. United States of America
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 5/4/11. (apl, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/6/11)
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICt! ~Oi~WJfCT CaUR1'.10
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARl)\6l\RwJ OF HP,RYLAh
JEROME FREDDIE MORRIS, JR. #43935037
*
Petitioner
*
v
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\ 10n t~AY\-5 P ~: 2~'
B...
~t
._.
_,..'
l\f:-~)~1T't{
I,,; L.,.
'~."
~
Civll'Achon -C~se No. RDB-II-828
*
*
Respondent
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending is Jerome Freddie Morris' (Morris) challenge to the execution of his term of
confinement.
I
For the reasons that follow, the case will be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Morris, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution-Fort Dix, is
challenging a determination about his assignment to twelve-month home detention. Although
Morris, who is self-represented, characterizes his motion as filed under Rule 60 (b) (l), (5) and
(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he provides neither factual nor legal basis for rule
60(b) review
2
and his claims are more properly raised by way of a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28U.S.C. 92241. See e.g. Atehortua v. Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129-30 (7th
Cir.1991 ) (calculation and manner of execution of term of imprisonment reviewed under 92241).
This petition will be so considered.
I
On November 4,2009, Morris was sentenced to twenty-four months incarceration after he pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to import cocaine and heroin in violation of21 V.S.c. 9963 in United States v. Morris, Criminal Action
No. RDB-09-05 (D. Md.).
2 Further, Rule 60(b) authorizes a court to "relieve a party from a final judgment for certain enumerated reasons."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Morris is not asking for relief from a final judgment but instead takes issues with an
administrative determination by the Bureau of Prisons.
A
S 2241
action is generally filed in the district court where a petitioner is in custody. See
28 U.S.C. S 2241(a); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit, 410 U.S. 484,495-500
(1973). In
this case, Morris is in the custody of the Warden at FCI Fort Dix. As that facility is located
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, this
matter will be transferred to that court for all proceedings that may be appropriate.
3
A separate
Order follows.
M,2)~;!~
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Morris has neither submitted the $ 5.00 filing fee for S 2241 petitions nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
While this Court will transfer this matter to the proper jurisdiction, the Court notes that before initiating as 2241
action, a petitioner is required to exhaust administrative remedies. Morris does not state whether he has exhausted
his claims through the Bureau of Prisons administrative grievance process.
3
2
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?