Clemons v. Keffer

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS adopting 9 Findings and Recommendations... Clemonss petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 6/8/2011) (krg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
EDDIE MAE CLEMONS,
Petitioner,
VS.
JOE KEFFER, Warden,
FMC-Carswell,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:10-CV-627-Y

ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
(With special instructions to the clerk of court)
In this action brought by petitioner Eddie Mae Clemons under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the
following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
1.

The pleadings and record;

2.

The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the United States magistrate judge filed on January 5,
2011; and

3.

The petitioner's written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States magistrate judge filed on January 12, 2011.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, that the Respondent’s motion
to dismiss must be granted, and the petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's
findings and conclusions.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge are ADOPTED, as modified.1
1

As determined by the magistrate judge, because Clemons was not convicted
of any offenses involving the “honest services” doctrine, the decision of the
Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010) has no
relevance and is not applicable. The magistrate judge also determined that the
Skilling decision is not a retroactively-applicable decision for purposes of the
first element in the test for determining whether a § 2241 petition may be filed
consistent with the “savings clause” of § 2255. The respondent has now
acknowledged to this Court that the Skilling decision is retroactive for such
purposes. See Edelman v. Keffer, No.4:10-CV-531-Y (April 26, 2011, Response.) As
the Skilling case is not applicable to Clemons’s conviction, that Skilling is

Respondent Keffer’s motion to dismiss (doc. 5) is GRANTED.
Eddie Mae Clemons’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SIGNED June 8, 2011.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

retroactive does not change the resolution of Clemons’s § 2241 petition.

2