Muhannad v. United States of America

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this case is dismissed without prejudice to reassertionin the proper forum. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WA’IL MANSUR MUHANNAD,
Petitioner,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:16CV142

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Leavenworth Detention Center
in Leavenworth, Kansas, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Liberally construed, Petitioner challenges the United
States Parole Commission’s authority to supervise him and revoke his parole. For the
reasons that follow, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
I. DISCUSSION
An action for habeas corpus which attacks the computation and execution of a
sentence, rather than the sentence itself, is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that a federal
prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of sentence’s execution must
bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241); Boone v. Menifee,
387 F. Supp.2d 338, 343 (S.D. N.Y. 2005) (“Included among the topics that a Section
2241 petitioner may address in such a proceeding are the administration of parole and
the computation of a prisoner’s sentence”). A federal prisoner attacking the execution
of a sentence in a § 2241 proceeding must be filed in the district where the prisoner
is confined. Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 2009) ([A] claim
attacking the execution of [a] sentence should be brought in a § 2241 petition in the
jurisdiction of incarceration”).

Petitioner in incarcerated in Leavenworth, Kansas. Because Petitioner is not
incarcerated in this district, the court will dismiss the petition without prejudice to
reassertion in the proper forum.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling on his petition for writ of habeas
corpus under § 2254 unless he is granted a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The standards for
certificates (1) where the district court reaches the merits or (2) where the district
court rules on procedural grounds are set for in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484485 (2000). I have applied the appropriate standard and determined Petitioner is not
entitled to a certificate of appealability.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice to reassertion
in the proper forum.
DATED this 23rd day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2