CLADEK
v.
WARDEN
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.
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate manifest error of law or fact to justify reconsideration of the dismissal of her habeas corpus petition.
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court previously dismissed the petition because it was not …
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 Cognizability Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Lydia Cladek’s “Objection to Order of May 15, 2019” and attached exhibits, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Civ. Doc. 36). On May 15, 2019, the Court dismissed without prejudice Petitioner’s pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Civ. Doc. 35). The Court did so because her claims were not cognizable under § 2241, because she had failed to comply with the Court’s instructions, and because she indicated she did not intend to comply.1
The Court instructed Petitioner to either (1) notify the Court that she intended to pursue the Petition as a § 2255 motion, (2) amend her claims by filing a § 2255 motion and including any additional claims she wished to pursue, or (3) notify the Court that she wished to withdraw the Petition. (Civ. Doc. 14 at 3).
Despite having several opportunities to do so, Petitioner did not comply with these instructions. Ultimately, Petitioner indicated she had no intention of complying with the Court’s orders, stating that she would “seek relief from her unconstitutional indictment, conviction and sentence through avenues other than through submission of a Section Although the title of the current motion suggests that Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing her § 2241 petition, her motion misses the mark. Petitioner continues to substantively attack her conviction and sentence, but she does not identify an error in the reasons why the Court dismissed her § 2241 petition, that is, Petitioner’s non-compliance with the Court’s instructions, and ultimately her statement that she did not intend to file a § 2255 motion. Accord Zelaya v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 798 F. 3d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming the dismissal of a prisoner’s § 2241 petition; stating that “[t]he district court was not obliged to recast Zelaya’s § 2241 petition over his express wishes, especially in light of the adverse consequences that can stem from filing a § 2255 motion.”).
Thus, Petitioner has not identified a “manifest error| | of law or fact,” “mistake” or “inadvertence,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (Civ. Doc. 36) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 4th day of November, 2019. LH, () Co
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge
Ie 19 Copies: Counsel of record Pro se petitioner
2255 motion to this Court.” (Civ. Doc. 31 at 8). Therefore, the Court dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice on May 15, 2019.