MORGAN
v.
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN-LOW
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 federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 petition to challenge the legality of his sentence if a § 2255 motion is available.
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his sentence was unlawful because the sub…
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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 cases and more on FLexlaw
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Richard Lewis Morgan’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Morgan is serving a federal prison sentence following a 2017 conviction in the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida. Morgan argues he is unlawfully detained because the substance he imported into the United States is not listed as a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). This is the proper venue for a § 2241 petition because Morgan is incarcerated in a county this Court serves. But because Morgan could raise his claim in a § 2255 motion, he may not assert it in a § 2241 petition.
“unless it…appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). So § 2241 is available to a federal prisoner challenging the execution—as opposed to the legality—of his sentence, or if the sentencing court is unavailable or dissolved. Amodeo v. FCC Coleman – Low Warden, 984 F. 3d 992, 999 (11th Cir. 2021). But a federal prisoner “cannot avoid the procedural restrictions on § 2255 motions by changing the caption on [his] petition to § 2241[.].” Fleming v. Warden of FCI Tallahassee, 631 F. App’x 840, 844 (11th Cir. 2015).
Morgan’s single argument falls within the scope of § 2255 because it challenges the legality of his sentence. He may not proceed under § 2241, even if a § 2255 motion is untimely. See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.- Suncoast, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1076, 1092 (11th Cir. 2017). “A movant may lose
because of untimeliness, or procedural default, or failure to bring the claim or claims in an initial § 2255 motion, but that is because of the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the case or the claims, not the remedy.” Amodeo, 984 F. 3d at 998.
To assert his claim, Morgan must file a § 2255 motion in the court that tried and sentenced him. That court will determine whether Morgan can overcome any procedural hurdles. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Richard Lewis Morgan’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1)is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate
any pending motions or deadlines, enter judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner, and close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 23, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCarthan v. Dir. OF Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017)
- Amodeo v. FCC Coleman - Low Warden, 984 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 2021)