Gosha v. Nash

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 21 Report and Recommendations, Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 05/15/2020 (KNS) (copy mailed to Petitioner)

Case 3:17-cv-00504-DPJ-FKB Document 23 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JEMARIS GOSHA, #29594-001
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-504-DPJ-FKB

WARDEN “UNKNOWN” NASH

RESPONDENT
ORDER

This habeas corpus petition is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball concluded that the Court
lacks jurisdiction over the matter, and Petitioner Jemaris Gosha never filed a response. For the
following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as its opinion.
Gosha filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, invoking the savings clause found in 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e). Judge Ball aptly and accurately explained why Gosha’s petition fails to satisfy
§ 2255(e), and there is no reason to repeat what he said. The Court agrees that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction.
In addition, another ground for dismissal now exits. After Judge Ball docketed the R&R,
the Clerk of Court mailed a copy to Gosha at the last address Gosha had used on a submission to
the Court—FCI Yazoo City, Mississippi. See Envelop [19-1] at 1. The R&R was returned as
undeliverable. See Mail Return [22]. Judge Ball had previously warned Gosha “that his failure
to advise the Court of a change of address may result in the dismissal of this case.” Oct. 17,
2017 Order [8] at 2. No such notice appears in the docket, and every envelop from Gosha used
the Yazoo City address. This was not the first time Gosha failed to follow the Court’s orders.
See Oct. 3, 2017 Show Cause Order [6]; Oct. 16, 2017 Order [8]; Nov. 30, 2017 Show Cause

Case 3:17-cv-00504-DPJ-FKB Document 23 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2

Order [11]. And on this history, the petition may be dismissed on the alternative ground that
Gosha again failed to follow court orders. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962).
Nevertheless, the Clerk of Court appears to have obtained another address for Gosha and
forwarded the R&R to him at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Beaver, West Virginia.
That occurred on April 21, 2020, and even using this new mailing date, the time to object has
now passed, so the R&R may be adopted as unopposed.1
For these reasons, the Court adopts the unopposed R&R as the opinion of the Court while
noting an alternative basis for dismissal. Gosha’s petition is thus dismissed with prejudice. A
separate judgement will be entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 15th day of May, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Assuming Gosha is in West Virginia—or another facility outside this district—“[j]urisdiction
attached on that initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it was not destroyed by the transfer of
petitioner and accompanying custodial change.” Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir.
2014). In other words, this Court retained jurisdiction after the transfer to consider whether
Gosha satisfied § 2255(e)’s savings clause.