JOSEPH J. HAJDUK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A challenge to parole commission actions, not the original sentence, must be brought via habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Hajduk pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced, becoming eligible for parole. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that increase…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
In 1978, Hajduk entered a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (second degree murder). He was sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), thus, making him immediately eligible for parole at such time as the parole commission, within its discretion, should determine that it was warranted. Since that time, the defendant has appeared before the parole commission on three occasions. His current presumptive parole date is set as September 4, 1990.
In 1983, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct, vacate, or set aside his sentence. The substance of petitioner’s motion was that since the time of his original incarceration the parole guidelines had been increased. The guidelines in 1978 called for 40 months in prison but since that time they have been increased to 76-84 months. Hajduk alleges that the amendment of the guidelines violates the ex post facto clause and furthermore that such a long period of incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The government filed its response and the case was referred to a United States Magistrate. The magistrate found that the motion was meritless.
The district court, adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation, entered an order denying relief and dismissing the petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal raising the issue of whether retrospective application of the parole guidelines violates the ex post facto clause.
II. THE LEGAL ISSUE IN CONTEXT
A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 179, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2237, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979); see also United States v. Plain, 748 F. 2d 620, 621 (11th Cir.1984).
Hajduk’s ex post facto argument is nothing more than a challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commission’s actions, not the lawfulness of the sentence imposed by the court. Such an action must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may only be brought in the court having jurisdiction over the petitioner or his place of incarceration. As Hajduk is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Lexington, Kentucky, he is outside the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Georgia for habeas corpus purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Plain, 748 F. 2d at 621 n. 3; Blau v. United States, 566 F. 2d 526, 527-28 (5th Cir.1978).
Hajduk, at his discretion, may bring his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the proper form.
However, we determine that jurisdiction was lacking in this case.
Therefore, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND the case to the district court that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCarthan v. Dir. OF Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017)…quate or ineffective remedy. But a motion to vacate could be “inadequate or ineffective to test” a prisoner’s claim about the execution of his sentence because that claim is not cognizable under section 2255(a). See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F. 2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985). The motion to vacate is “of such a nature” that it will “not ... produce ... the intended [] effect,” Ineffective, 5 Oxford English Dictionary 239 (1st ed. 1933), because the prisoner does not challenge his sentence and the…1 / 2
-
Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, United States Parole Comm'n, 542 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008)…bstance, their lawsuit collaterally attacks a sentence. Here, Antonelli’s petition is properly brought pursuant to § 2241. A § 2241 action is the appropriate vehicle to challenge a decision of the federal Parole Commission. Hajduk v. United States, 764 F. 2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (ordering a jurisdictional dismissal of a § 2255 motion challenging Parole Commission decision). This is because challenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than the validity of the sentence itself, are properly brought un…
-
Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1991)…ndez also challenges the Parole Commission’s repeated denial of his requests for parole. However, actions of the Parole Commission may be challenged only in habeas corpus proceedings initiated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hajduk v. United States, 764 F. 2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985). Section 2241 petitions may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated. Fernandez is confined at FMC-Rochester in Minnesota. Consequently, even if we were to construe Fernandez’…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1979)
- Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620 (11th Cir. 1984)