Ned v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this petition should be dismissed. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 7/27/17. (mrp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-127
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jeremy Ned, 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 Zack Hawthorn, 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.
This court is bound by the precedent of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
In the Fifth Circuit, it is clear that a petitioner may not challenge in a § 2241 petition a sentence he
received as a result of his conviction rather than the conviction itself. Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d. 893, 894 (5th Cir. 2001); Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000).
Recently, in Logan v. Warden Fed. Correctional Complex Beaumont, 644 F. App’x 280 (5th Cir.
2016), the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of a § 2241 petition brought pursuant to the savings
clause in which the petitioner asserted, as asserted in this petition, that he was erroneously sentenced.
The Fifth Circuit held that “[i]n the absence of an en banc decision by this court or an intervening
Supreme Court decision overruling circuit precedent holding that a § 2241 petition cannot be used
to challenge solely the validity of a federal sentence, this court is bound by its own precedent.” Id.
at 81; see also Oxner v. Roy, 616 F. App’x 190, 191 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of § 2241
petition claiming the sentencing court erroneously determined prior conviction was violent felony
pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act). As petitioner challenges the validity of a sentence
enhancement, his claim 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); ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d. at 894. Thus, this petition should be dismissed.
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
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Plano, Texas, this 27th day of July, 2017.
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?