Eaton v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 5 Report and Recommendation, This action is DISMISSED, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 3/4/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM GENE EATON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1359-R

ORDER
Petitioner filed a “Motion for Legality of Conviction Supported by the Savings
Clause Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e),” which the Court construes as an
application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. No. 1. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Suzanne Mitchell for preliminary review. On December 31, 2014, Judge Mitchell issued
a Report and Recommendation wherein she recommended that the application for habeas
relief be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. No. 5, at 2, 5. The matter is currently
before the Court on Petitioner’s objection to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
6], which gives rise to the Court’s obligation to conduct a de novo review of any portion
of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner makes specific objection.
Judge Mitchell recommends dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction under
§ 2241(a) because it should have been brought in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, where Petitioner is confined, and it is not “in the interest of
justice” to transfer his claims to that District under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Doc. No. 5, at 3-5.

In his objection, Petitioner first notes that the Magistrate Judge “did not address the
District Court[’]s recharacterizing [P]etitioner’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 file[d] Nov. 2000.” Doc.
No. 6. He also argues that the Report and Recommendation does not address his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. These objections go to the merits of
Petitioner’s claims and do not address the jurisdictional defect of filing the action in the
wrong District.
The undersigned agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. This Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s
application for habeas relief under § 2241, and it would not be in the interest of justice to
transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] is ADOPTED in its entirety
and the petition [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2015.

2