GULLY

v.

WARDEN, USP COLEMAN I

Petitioner, Tvonn Tshawn Gully, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.¹ (Dkt. 3.) The petition is before the court for preliminary review. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.² This court must "promptly examine” a habeas petition and dismiss it "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court[.]" Id. This petition is due to be dismissed because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Habeas corpus is the “exclusive remedy” for prisoners seeking “immediate or speedier release from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F. 3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). Challenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than the validity of the sentence itself, are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F. 3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).

Petitioner challenges the "validity of the marijuana laws" under which he was convicted. (Dkt. 3 at 4, 6.) Thus, Petitioner does not contest the execution of his sentence, but instead contests its legality. See, e.g., Acosta v. Warden, FCC Coleman- Medium, 686 F. App'x 836, 837 (11th Cir. 2017); Young v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium, No. 5:16-CV-737-OC-10PRL, 2017 WL 11621319, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2017); Vargas v. Whitaker, No. CV 321-059, 2021 WL 6805806, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Vargas v. Stone, No. CV 321-059, 2022 WL 347612 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 4, 2022). Consequently, § 2255, not § 2241, is the appropriate statutory vehicle for Petitioner's claim unless he can satisfy the "saving clause." See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017).

The saving clause is triggered when a prisoner's remedy under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A motion under § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective . . . only when it cannot remedy a particular kind of claim." McCarthan, 851 F. 3d at 1099. "Traditionally, courts have treated the saving clause as covering unusual circumstances in which it is impossible or impracticable for a prisoner to seek relief" such as "the sentencing court's dissolution." Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 474 (2023) (citations omitted). Petitioner does not allege any circumstances that would demonstrate the application of the saving clause. (See Dkt. 3 at 4.) Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate the applicability of the saving clause, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his § 2241 petition on the merits. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Accordingly, the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 3) is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 17, 2025.

Copies furnished to: Tvonn Tshawn Gully 24156-509 FCI Coleman I P.O. Box 1033 Coleman, FL 33521

JULIE S. SNEED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE