Soliz v. Martin

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling petitioner's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 6 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/1/2012. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JUAN SOLIZ

§

VS.

§

M. MARTIN

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv584

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Juan Soliz, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont,
Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review
of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court concludes petitioner's objections should be overruled.
In support of his claims, Petitioner cites Bond v. United States,

U.S.

, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 180

L.Ed.2d 269 (2011). In Bond, the Supreme Court held that a person convicted of a federal offense
had standing to assert that Congress exceeded its power under the Tenth Amendment in enacting
the applicable criminal statute. The Supreme Court did not hold that such a claim could be raised

in a § 2241 petition, and the Court did not invalidate any federal criminal statutes. Blodgett v.
Martin, 2011 WL 6187097, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished). Liberally construed,
Petitioner’s objections also assert that the writ of habeas corpus has been improperly suspended if
relief is not available to him under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241. This claim is without merit because
the savings clause under § 2255 does not violate the Suspension Clause of the United States
Constitution. Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary , Beaumont, 305 F.3d 343, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus,
Petitioner's petition does not meet the criteria required to support a claim under the savings clause
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2005); Reyes-Requena v.
United States, 243 F.3d. 893 (5th Cir. 2001).
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1 day of June, 2012.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2