Viola v. Grondolsky
Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION(Montes, Mariliz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WARDEN JEFF GRONDOLSKY
C.A. No. 17-40037
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
Petitioner Gregory Viola’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, is hereby DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s
remedy is the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding in the sentencing district, which was procedurally
closed without prejudice on March 15, 2017, 1 and not a subsequent § 2241 petition in this court.
A “‘motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] § 2241 generally challenges the execution of a federal
prisoner’s sentence, including such matters as the administration of parole, computation of a
prisoner’s sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of
detention and prison conditions.’” Thornton v. Sabol, 620 F. Supp. 2d 203, 206 (D. Mass. 2009)
(quoting Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001). Petitioner’s claims do not touch upon
these types of issues, so the petition must be dismissed. 2 By contrast, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a
On March 15, 2017, the District of Connecticut judge presiding over petitioner’s § 2255
proceeding issued the following Order: “ORDER closing case without prejudice to reopening, and
denying 48 Motion to Continue in light of this Order. Plaintiff has requested numerous extensions
of time, the most recent of which [Dkt. 48] asserts an additional extension is necessary to retain
counsel and allow that counsel to familiarize himself with the case. Plaintiff is apparently unable
to prosecute this case without counsel, as evidenced by his many requests for extension since he
filed this action in September of 2015. This case is accordingly closed without prejudice to
reopening with or without counsel when Plaintiff is prepared to proceed in a timely manner, not to
exceed 120 days from the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to close this file.” Viola v.
United States, 15-cv-01398-VLB (D. Conn. March 15, 2017) Electronic Order, ECF No. 49.
The “savings clause” exception provides petitioner no relief under § 2241 where there is no
showing that a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
federal prisoner who claims that his “sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate,
set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). The sentencing court
here is the District of Connecticut, and if the relief sought by Petitioner is available, it would be
through the § 2255 process pending in that court. In these circumstances, where it appears that the
relief sought is unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the District of Massachusetts has no
jurisdiction and the petition must be denied. Bultmeyer v. Grondolsky, No. CIV.A. 13-40119-FDS,
2013 WL 5538450, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2013).
April 13, 2017
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Petitioner’s claims can be adequately and effectively evaluated by the
District of Connecticut, which will allow him to reopen his previously filed § 2255 petition. Where
there is, in essence, an open § 2255 proceeding in which these claims have been or could be made,
the petition must be dismissed. Bultmeyer v. Grondolsky, No. CIV.A. 13-40119-FDS, 2013 WL
5538450, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2013) (dismissing § 2241 petition alleging judicial bias and
prosecutorial misconduct where § 2255 petition was pending in sentencing court).
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?