Neal v. Joyner

Filing 31

ORDER remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial processing consistent with this order. Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett added. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 7/9/2018. (bgoo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Craig Andre Neal, Petitioner, vs. Warden Joyner, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 0: 17-2352-RMG ORDER Petitioner, serving a life sentence for various drug-related convictions in the Middle District of Florida in 2002, filed a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had previously and unsuccessfully pursued habeas relief in 2006 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court, following the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and the law of this circuit, summarily dismissed Petitioner' s habeas petition because he did not challenge the underlying lawfulness of his conviction. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 11 ). In a recent decision, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F. 3d 415 , 429 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit recognized the right of a habeas petitioner to challenge the lawfulness of his sentence under § 2241 where there has been a change in substantive law relating to the petitioner' s sentence that applies retroactively. The Fourth Circuit recently vacated and remanded this Court' s order to reconsider its decision in light of Wheeler. (Dkt. No. 28). Although Petitioner' s filings do not suggest that he bases his petition on a substantive change in the law affecting the lawfulness of his sentence, the Court finds that the ends of justice are served by providing the Petitioner an opportunity to address the newly pronounced Wheeler 1 standards in his habeas petition. Consequently, the Court remands the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial processing consistent with this order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge i, July 2018 Charleston, South Carolina 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?