-
846 F.2d 550·
9th Cir.·
1988-05-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the Bureau of Prisons complied with the Privacy Act by including the inmate's rebuttal with his records, and that the inmate's claims for expungement and habeas corpus relief were moot or otherwise unmeritorious.
-
824 F.2d 914·
11th Cir.·
1987-08-14
·cited 2×
The court held that a motion to correct a presentence investigation report under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 does not confer jurisdiction on the district court after sentencing, especially when the defendant failed to object to the report at trial.
-
803 F.2d 1095·
10th Cir.·
1986-10-22
·cited 2×
A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is unavailable for claims challenging the execution of a sentence rather than its validity. Such claims must be raised in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
-
753 F.2d 83·
8th Cir.·
1985-01-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the discovery motion because no case was pending and the motion did not qualify as a § 2255 motion or a § 2241 petition.
-
649 F.2d 634·
8th Cir.·
1981-06-03
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for the Ohio indictment and that claims regarding the detainer's effects were moot.
-
2021 WL 5447108·
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-21
·cited 1×
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when the petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Court of Appeals.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-01-31
·cited 1×
The court held that the petitioner must file an amended petition and pay the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis to maintain his habeas corpus action.
-
151 F. Supp. 2d 1353·
N.D. Fla.·
2001-07-06
·cited 1×
A federal defendant cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge a conviction based on the Apprendi rule if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will provide an adequate and effective remedy in due course.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-13
The court held that a petitioner's current immigration detention is not rendered unlawful by aggregating it with prior detentions that occurred over twenty years ago, and that the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the transfer of immigration detainees.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-12
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and the petitioner's arguments regarding futility and post-filing exhaustion were unpersuasive.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2026-02-02
The court held that the petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as duplicative of prior filings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-29
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was facially deficient due to a lack of specific factual allegations and granted the petitioner leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-30
The court held that a federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 2241 petition, and the futility exception is not applicable in the Eleventh Circuit for such petitions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-23
The court held that the petitioner, acting as a "next friend," lacked standing to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to demonstrate why the detainee could not appear on his own behalf or that he was dedicated to the detainee's best interests.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-19
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's claims challenging his detention and deportation due to the bar imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-19
The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was subject to dismissal due to improper venue, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
The court held that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is an inappropriate vehicle to challenge a commitment order when the petitioner has a direct appeal pending on the same issue.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-15
Continued detention of a noncitizen is unreasonable and unauthorized by statute if removal is not reasonably foreseeable after a presumptively reasonable period of six months.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-10
The court held that the petitioner, detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, is entitled to a bond hearing, not immediate release.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-10
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-05
The court held that the pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus is frivolous and should be dismissed without prejudice.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-12-02
Federal court should abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings when certain conditions are met, and no exceptions apply.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-01
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because his claim is untimely and, alternatively, he had no right to control release or gain time.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-20
The court held that Petitioner's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), entitling him to an individualized bond hearing, and that administrative exhaustion is excused due to futility.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-18
The court held that a prisoner convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is ineligible for earned time credits under the First Step Act, and their sentence is properly aggregated for administrative purposes.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
An alien detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is entitled to a bond hearing, not immediate release.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-31
The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief for alleged violations of state law, and that an unserved arrest warrant does not trigger the Interstate Agreement on Detainers or the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-29
The court held that the inmate received the due process required in prison disciplinary proceedings and that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer's decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court held that a federal prisoner convicted of possessing contraband in prison is ineligible for earned time credits under the First Step Act, even if other sentences are for eligible offenses, because all sentences are aggregated for administrative purposes.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court held that a prisoner subject to a final order of removal is ineligible to apply earned time credits under the First Step Act.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his arrest, detention, conviction, or sentence cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if a remedy is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-24
The court held that a habeas corpus petition should be dismissed as duplicative if it raises the same or substantially similar claims as prior, already dismissed petitions.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-23
The court recommended dismissal of the habeas petition as duplicative because the petitioner had filed numerous similar actions previously.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-19
A federal prisoner's claims challenging the revocation of prerelease custody, including home confinement, are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because they concern the execution of the sentence and the designation of confinement, which are matters c
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-05
The court held that a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conditions of confinement, and that warrantless arrests are permissible if officers have reasonable suspicion of illegal presence.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-29
The District Court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss a §2241 habeas petition under the Younger abstention doctrine, finding that federal court intervention was inappropriate where state court proceedings were ongoing. The court also denied a certificate of ap
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-29
The court held that the inmate received all required due process protections and that the disciplinary decision was supported by 'some evidence,' thus denying the habeas petition.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-22
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of prior filings.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-21
The court held that a habeas corpus petition should be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative if it raises the same or substantially similar issues as prior pending or dismissed cases.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-21
A prisoner has no enforceable interest in transfer to prerelease custody on his earliest eligibility date, and BOP placement decisions are not reviewable by courts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-29
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not properly filing her initial grievance at the institutional level, thus her petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-23
The court held that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) properly denied the petitioner's request for early release credit for participating in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) because his conviction involved a firearm, making him ineligible under BOP regulations.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-21
The court held that the Bureau of Prisons has discretion in designating the timing and place of prerelease custody, and the statutes do not mandate immediate transfer.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-17
The court held that a federal prisoner challenging his sentence must use a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and such a motion is premature while a direct appeal is pending.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-23
The court held that the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be dismissed without prejudice because he failed to exhaust state remedies and the Younger abstention doctrine applies. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-20
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-18
The court held that a pretrial detainee's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not a proper avenue for claims that should be raised in the criminal case or a separate civil rights action.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-06-17
A federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 habeas petition to challenge their conviction or sentence unless the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Petitioner's claims do not meet the narrow exceptions for inadequacy.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-11
The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must be based on newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact, and cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been previously presented.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-05-21
The district court dismissed the motion as an unauthorized second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, lacking jurisdiction to consider it.