Bennett v. Holt

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Dismiss. The respondent shall, within 30 days from the date of entry of this order on the docket, submit a responsive pleading addressing the merits of the petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/8/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) Modified on 1/8/2014 (dt).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

TRACY EVELYN WATTS BENNETT
Petitioner,
v.
BILL HOLT
Respondent.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:13-0991
Judge Trauger

ORDER

On August 26, 2013, the petitioner initiated the instant action with the filing of a pro se
Petition (Docket Entry No. 1) for writ of habeas corpus.
According to the Petition, the petitioner has been wrongly denied credit for time served while
she was in a Community Corrections program. Because the nature of petitioner’s claim suggests an
attack upon the execution of her sentence rather than its imposition, the Court has construed this
action as one arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket Entry No. 3 at pg. 1, fn. 1; United States v.
Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991).
By an order (Docket Entry No. 8) entered September 25, 2013, the respondent was directed
to file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the Petition. Presently before the Court is
respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 16) the Petition. The basis for this Motion is
respondent’s contention that the Petition is untimely.
There is, however, no statutory limitation period applicable to a prisoner filing a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2012). As a result, the
respondent’s Motion to Dismiss does not appear to have merit. For that reason, the Motion to

Dismiss is hereby DENIED.1
The respondent shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order on the
docket, submit a responsive pleading addressing the merits of the petitioner’s application for habeas
corpus relief.
It is so ORDERED.

_____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

1

The respondent seems to rely, at least in part, upon the opinion in Williams v. Birkett,
670 F.3d 729, 731 (6th Cir. 2012) as support for his assertion that the Petition is untimely. Docket
Entry No. 17 at pg. 3. Williams is a § 2254 case holding that the petitioner’s second state-court
motion for post-conviction relief was not properly filed so as to statutorily toll the running of the
§ 2254 limitation period. The Williams holding has no application to a Petition being brought
pursuant to § 2241.