Walker v. FCI-Low Warden, Beaumont

Filing 11

MEMORANUDM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this petition be dismissed. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 11/20/15. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AQUIL WALKER,
Petitioner,
versus
WARDEN, FCI,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-34

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Aquil Walker, an inmate formerly 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 that the above-styled petition should be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. 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 are without merit.
To the extent petitioner is using his claim of breach of the plea agreement to challenge the legality
of his conviction and sentence, the claim is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenge. See Braddy v. Fox, 537
F. App’x 469, 469-70 (5th Cir. 2013); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
This court is without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s § 2255 challenge, however, because
petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Additionally, to the extent petitioner’s breach of plea agreement claim challenges
the manner of the execution of his sentence, the claim is moot as a result of his release from

custody. Further, the 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). Finally, petitioner’s claims for
monetary damages related to the conditions of his confinement do not contest the fact or duration
of his confinement and cannot serve as a basis for habeas corpus relief, as the magistrate judge
determined.
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 recommendation.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 20th day of November, 2015.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2