Koon v. Castillo

Filing 15

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Leave to File; denying 13 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/20/12. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(

JEREMY KOON,
Petitioner,
vs.
JUAN D. CASTILLO,
Respondent.

No. 10-2574-STA-cgc

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND
AND
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

On August 5, 2010, Petitioner Jeremy Koon, Bureau of
Prisons inmate registration number 17432-076, an inmate at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro
se

petition

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

2241

that

sought

the

expungement of an incident report and the restoration of forfeited
good conduct credits. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed his Answer on
November 30, 2010. (ECF No. 11.)
On June 10, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to
Supplement and Amend 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition and Motion that
sought to add, as an additional ground for relief, a claim that his
guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent in light of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___,

130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2010). (ECF No. 12.) On June 21,
2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion
for Leave to Supplement and Amend (ECF No. 13), which stated that
the motion had been filed in the wrong case. On June 23, 2011,
Respondent filed his Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to
Supplement and Amend 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition and Motion (ECF No.
14), that attached a letter from Petitioner stating, in effect,
that he does not intend to amend the claims asserted in the instant
case.
On June 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he asserted
that his guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent in light of
Johnson v. United States. (§ 2241 Habeas Corpus Pet. Form to be
Used by Prisoners in Actions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or in Actions
Challenging Removal Proceedings at 3-4, Koon v. Castillo, No. 112516-STA-dkv (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 1.) Because Petitioner has
presented his new claim in a separate petition, his Motion to
Supplement and Amend is DENIED. Respondent’s Motion to Strike is
DENIED because Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement and Amend, which

2

bears the typewritten docket number of this action, was not
misfiled.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2012.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3