Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    Jones v. McFadden - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Albert Lee Jones, Objections to R&R due by 9/8/2005 (Howard, Linda) 6:2005cv03383 Missouri Western District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jones v. McFadden - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    132 views2 pages
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Albert Lee Jones, Objections to R&R due by 9/8/2005 (Howard, Linda) 6:2005cv03383 Missouri Western District Court

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Albert Lee Jones, Objections to R&R due by 9/8/2005 (Howard, Linda) 6:2005cv03383 Missouri Western District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    132 views2 pages

    Jones v. McFadden - Document No. 3

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Albert Lee Jones, Objections to R&R due by 9/8/2005 (Howard, Linda) 6:2005cv03383 Missouri Western District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Jones v. McFadden Doc.

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


    WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
    SOUTHERN DIVISION

    ALBERT LEE JONES, )


    )
    Petitioner, )
    v. ) Civil Action
    ) No. 05-3383-CV-S-DW-H
    ROBERT McFADDEN, et al., )
    )
    Respondents. )

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

    Petitioner, an inmate confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners,

    petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus in which he challenges his sentence. The petition

    has been referred to the undersigned for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Because this

    Court lacks jurisdiction of petitioner's claims, it will be recommended that he be denied leave to

    proceed in forma pauperis.

    As grounds for relief in habeas corpus, petitioner contends that the sentencing court erred

    in enhancing his sentence. Petitioner relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

    Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. –, 124 S.Ct. 253 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

    — (2005), to support his contention that his sentence is unconstitutional.

    The law is clear that a petitioner who seeks to attack the validity of a federal sentence must

    do so in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless it appears that the motion is

    inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the detention. E.g., Winston v. Mustain, 562 F.2d

    565, 566 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000). A petitioner

    has the burden, moreover, of showing that the "inadequate or ineffective" test has been met. Von

    Ludwitz v. Ralston, 716 F.2d 528, 529 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). The fact that a § 2255 motion

    Case 6:05-cv-03383-DW Document 3 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 2


    Dockets.Justia.com
    has already been denied, that a petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive

    § 2255 motion, or that a petitioner has allowed the statute of limitations and/or grace period to

    expire, does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. Lurie, 207 F.3d at 1077.

    Regardless of petitioner’s assertions in this case, the action is improperly filed under the

    provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The issues he raises are cognizable, if at all, in the sentencing court.

    It is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction of petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, it must be

    recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is without prejudice

    to petitioner’s right, if any, to bring a Booker challenge in the sentencing court.

    For the foregoing reasons, it is, pursuant to the governing law and in accordance with Local

    Rule 72.1 of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,

    RECOMMENDED that petitioner be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the

    petition herein for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice.

    /s/ James C. England


    JAMES C. ENGLAND
    United States Magistrate

    Date: 8/24/05

    Case 6:05-cv-03383-DW Document 3 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 2 of 2

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy