LENTON
v.
UNITED STATES
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 it lacked jurisdiction to hear a §2241 petition challenging a sentence, as such petitions must be filed in the district of confinement.
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 challenging his sentence. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal or transfer. Peti…
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.
to show that §2255 was an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy for the Brady issue raised in the petition, see 28 U.S.C. §2255(e); Reed, 600 F. App’x at 690 (“In order to proceed under §2241, [the petitioner] needed to show that §2255 was ‘inadequate or ineffective’ to challenge the legality of his detention.”); McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1076, 1099 (11th Cir. 2017) (“A motion to vacate [under §2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a prisoner's detention only when it cannot remedy a particular kind of claim.”). However, because Petitioner expressly invoked §2241, the Court cannot treat the petition as having been filed under §2255 and instead must transfer the petition to the district of confinement for appropriate disposition. See Garcia v. Warden, 470 F. App’x 735, 736 (11th Cir. 2012); Holt v. Warden, 2012 WL 1166381, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2012) (explaining that because sentencing court does not have jurisdiction over §2241 petition filed by prisoner who is confined in another district, the sentencing court does not have the authority to determine whether the prisoner had an adequate or effective remedy under §2255). Petitioner is confined in South Carolina, so jurisdiction over his nominal
§2241 petition lies solely in the District of South Carolina. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
Case No.: 4:21cv160/TKW/EMT
542, U.S. 426, 443 (2004); Garcia, 470 F. App’x at 735. Accordingly, because this Court lacks jurisdiction, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 2. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and close the file in this court. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2021.
T. Kent Wetherell, II
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No.: 4:21cv160/TKW/EMT
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lenton v. United States, 2008 WL 686956 (N.D. Fla. 2021)…The petition likely was not filed under §2255 because Petitioner previously filed a §2255 motion that was denied on the merits, see United States v. Lenton, Case No. 4:02cr26, ECF No. 115 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2008), report and recommendation adopted 2008 WL 686956 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2008), certificate of appealability denied Case No. 08-11429 (11th Cir. June 27, 2018), and Petitioner has not received authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive motion pursuant to §2255(h). Page 2 o…
Authorities Cited
- McCarthan v. Dir. OF Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017)
- Lenton v. United States, 2008 WL 686956 (N.D. Fla. 2021)