-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-10-07
A federal prisoner seeking to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence must file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement, unless the § 2255 remed
-
11th Cir.·
2021-09-08
Hassan Farah, a Somali refugee with multiple criminal convictions, challenged his deportation order on several grounds, including claims that his controlled-substance and assault convictions were not removable offenses and that he was entitled to withholding of removal or protect
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-13
The court held that the inmate received adequate due process in the prison disciplinary proceeding and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-28
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as premature and under the doctrine of Younger abstention, as state civil commitment proceedings are ongoing and implicate important state interests.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-28
A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and cannot use the § 2241 saving clause unless § 2255 is demonstrably inadequate or ineffective.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-10
The court held that a federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 petition to challenge his sentence when § 2255 provides an adequate and effective remedy, even if that remedy was unsuccessful.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-30
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition is moot because he has been deported and the court can no longer provide meaningful relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-16
This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for compassionate release; only the sentencing court may consider such motions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-13
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner was not entitled to pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for challenging the validity of his sentence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-03-23
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his habeas corpus petition.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-24
The court held that a motion challenging the computation of a federal sentence, specifically seeking credit for time served in state custody, should be construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not § 2255.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-02
The court held that it lacks the authority to grant a prisoner's request for home confinement, as this authority rests exclusively with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-01-06
The court held that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence when 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides an adequate and effective remedy.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-11
The court held that the petitioner's continued post-removal detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights because the government failed to demonstrate a likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future after over fifteen months of detention.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-07
The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-05
The court held that a federal inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be filed in the district where the inmate's immediate custodian is located.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-30
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition because the petitioner's custodian was located in a different federal judicial district.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-10-26
The court held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds, none of which were present in this case.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-15
The court held that the Parole Commission's denial of parole was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate federal law, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-07
The court held that the petitioner's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and is presumed reasonable, thus his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-07
A federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the petitioner is not in the custody of the respondent authority, and an immigration detainer alone does not satisfy this requirement.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-23
The court held that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging post-removal order detention is premature if filed before the presumptively reasonable six-month detention period has expired.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-13
The court held that the petitioner established a claim for unlawful post-removal detention, shifting the burden to the government to prove likelihood of removal, which they failed to do.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-08
A federal prisoner cannot use the § 2241 saving clause to challenge a conviction based on an intervening change in the law if they have already had a prior § 2255 motion denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-08
A federal prisoner cannot use the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) to seek relief under § 2241 based on an intervening change in the law or general health risks from confinement.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2020-05-20
Continued detention of an alien beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period is unlawful if removal is not reasonably foreseeable and the alien has not frustrated the removal process.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-20
The court held that a federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 habeas petition to challenge the legality of his sentence when § 2255 is available, even if prior precedent foreclosed the claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-09
The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was premature because the petitioner had not been detained for the presumptively reasonable six-month period for removal proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-02
The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the untimeliness of his administrative appeal was not cognizable in a § 2241 petition because it challenged the circumstances of his confinement, not the validity or duration of his sentence, and he failed to exhaust administra
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-27
The court held that the inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and his due process claims lacked merit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-11
The court held that a change in caselaw does not render the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention, and thus the saving clause does not apply.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-26
A petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds not present in this case.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-25
The court held that a federal prisoner's claims challenging disciplinary proceedings that do not affect the fact or duration of his sentence, such as loss of privileges or disciplinary segregation without loss of good time, are not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition under 28
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-13
A federal prisoner cannot use the § 2255 saving clause to circumvent the requirement to obtain permission to file a second or successive motion to vacate when the § 2255 remedy was adequate and effective.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-07
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.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-05
A federal prisoner challenging the constitutionality of his sentence must use 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the savings clause of § 2255 does not apply if the remedy is merely barred by procedural rules.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-04
The court held that the Bureau of Prisons' disciplinary proceedings did not violate the inmate's due process rights, as the decision was supported by 'some evidence' and followed regulatory procedures.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-29
A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence must file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, not a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in a different district.
-
612 F. Supp. 2d 1255·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-04-10
The court held that an inmate's challenge to parole procedures, including reliance on judicial objections, does not state a constitutional claim cognizable under § 1983 or habeas corpus because Florida parole statutes do not create a protected liberty interest and procedural chan
-
564 F.3d 1290·
11th Cir.·
2009-04-08
General Manuel Antonio Noriega, a prisoner of war designated under the Third Geneva Convention, petitioned for habeas corpus relief to prevent his extradition to France, arguing that the Convention prohibited his extradition and required his immediate repatriation to Panama. The
-
401 F.3d 1288·
11th Cir.·
2005-03-07
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a federal habeas petition challenging Massachusetts consecutive sentences, holding that § 2254 rather than § 2241 was the proper vehicle for such relief and that the petitioner failed to join necessary parties for hi
-
268 F. Supp. 2d 1329·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-06-20
A petitioner's failure to file a § 2255 motion within the one-year limitations period, even for claims based on newly recognized rights, does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective to allow use of the § 2241 savings clause.
-
164 F.3d 575·
11th Cir.·
1999-01-04
Ernesto Alonso Mejia Rodriguez, a Honduran national, challenged his 1994 deportation order through a § 2241 habeas corpus petition after his state drug conviction was vacated in 1997 on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
-
995 F.2d 606·
5th Cir.·
1993-07-16
The court held that the Parole Commission's application of its 1990 guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause and that the Commission did not violate the separation of powers doctrine by establishing parole suitability guidelines.
-
1993 WL 262598·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-07-06
The court held that a federal prisoner seeking to challenge the imposition or length of his sentence must first exhaust remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 before seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
-
996 F.2d 1069·
10th Cir.·
1993-06-25
The court held that a pro se litigant's allegations of interference with his right to self-representation, which impacted his ability to present a defense, constitute a challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement, properly brought under habeas corpus statutes, not solely
-
995 F.2d 1440·
8th Cir.·
1993-06-18
The court held that a federal prisoner is not entitled to credit against a federal sentence for time spent incarcerated by a foreign sovereign for violating that sovereign's laws, even if the conduct is the same, and that a mistake in awarding credit to another prisoner does not
-
989 F.2d 420·
10th Cir.·
1993-03-30
The court held that the Parole Commission's correction of a notice regarding street time credit was permissible and did not violate due process, but reversed and remanded the claim regarding the withdrawal of a parole violator warrant without a timely revocation hearing.
-
911 F.2d 1111·
5th Cir.·
1990-09-17
The court held that claims concerning sentencing errors are properly brought under § 2255, while post-sentencing errors by the Parole Commission or Bureau of Prisons are properly brought under § 2241. The denial of a motion to amend a habeas petition to add a claim for jail-time
-
868 F.2d 1442·
5th Cir.·
1989-04-04
A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to have another inmate represent or argue a motion for him in a court hearing.