Grigsby v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 3 Report and Recommendation. Petitioners 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. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/13/2017. (slo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DOUGLAS GLENN GRIGSBY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17cv61
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Douglas Glenn Grigsby, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Texarkana, 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 Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Texarkana, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge recommending the petition be denied.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted 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 and should be overruled.
Petitioner seeks to challenge a five-level enhancement applied to his sentence received from
the Eastern District of Virginia following his conviction for Receipt of Child Pornography.
Petitioner’s challenge is based on a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment
801. Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation asserting that challenges to a sentence
rather than the underlying conviction are not categorically barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Further,
Petitioner contends the erroneous application of the Sentencing Guidelines is a fundamental
sentencing defect which can be remedied under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
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 his sentence,
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); Reyes-Requena, 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 Judge’s
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2017.
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?