-
541 F.2d 938·
2d Cir.·
1976-08-30
·cited 111×
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a de novo parole hearing and order release, and that the Parole Board could consider the full circumstances of the offense behavior, including information in the presentence report, even if not directly related
-
851 F.3d 1076·
11th Cir.·
2017-03-14
·cited 103×
The "saving clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) allows a federal prisoner to seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the remedy by motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention. This inadequacy must be assessed at the time the § 2241 pe
-
426 F.2d 213·
9th Cir.·
1970-01-23
·cited 60×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff was not in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for habeas corpus purposes, and the action could not be construed as a mandamus action.
-
659 F.2d 857·
8th Cir.·
1981-09-18
·cited 56×
The court held that the Parole Commission did not violate statutory authority or the ex post facto clause by considering offense sophistication over institutional adjustment and by applying revised guidelines.
-
651 F.2d 1083·
5th Cir.·
1981-07-27
·cited 39×
The court held that the United States Parole Commission's denial of parole was not illegal, did not violate due process, and did not breach the petitioner's plea bargain.
-
527 F.2d 492·
2d Cir.·
1975-11-26
·cited 38×
The court held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the prisoner's continuing probation obligations made that district his residence for venue purposes, and that prison authorities must provide a diet sufficient to sustain the prisoner without violati
-
579 F.2d 1022·
7th Cir.·
1978-06-29
·cited 26×
Federal jurisdiction is present because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act creates federal rights, but the exercise of that jurisdiction is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies.
-
566 F.2d 526·
5th Cir.·
1978-01-19
·cited 26×
The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a petition for habeas corpus, as the issues raised were either outside the scope of § 2255 or the court lacked proper venue for habeas corpus.
-
702 F.2d 842·
9th Cir.·
1983-04-01
·cited 22×
The court held that the appellant's claims regarding credit for state custody time and timely parole revocation hearings were premature or lacked demonstrated prejudice, and that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply to parole violator warrants.
-
641 F.2d 96·
3d Cir.·
1981-02-02
·cited 22×
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, holding that while the double jeopardy issue was troubling, the district court did not err in its disposition of the appellant's claims.
-
542 F.2d 725·
8th Cir.·
1976-09-29
·cited 22×
The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under Kortness if the parole guidelines pre-dated the sentence and did not change its import, and due process claims regarding parole execution are cognizable only in habeas corpus under § 2241.
-
945 F.3d 1310·
11th Cir.·
2019-12-23
·cited 21×
The court held that the statutory text requires a showing of bad faith for the removal period to be extended due to an incomplete travel document application, and that the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of good faith.
-
663 F.2d 1044·
11th Cir.·
1981-12-14
·cited 21×
The court held that the Parole Board's issuance of a detainer was proper and that the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief due to delays or transfers.
-
644 F.2d 543·
6th Cir.·
1981-03-02
·cited 21×
The Sixth Circuit held that while a federal court can entertain a pretrial habeas petition for a speedy trial claim to enforce the state's duty to provide a prompt trial, the district court erred in dismissing the indictment prematurely. The court also held that the arbitrary rev
-
557 F.2d 74·
6th Cir.·
1977-06-13
·cited 20×
A district court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence based on the sentencing judge's subjective, unexpressed belief about future parole eligibility, especially when the Parole Commission's guidelines were published and known at the time of sentencing.
-
701 F.2d 810·
9th Cir.·
1983-03-16
·cited 18×
The court held that the prisoner was not denied due process by the untimely notice of referral or the extension of his parole date, and that his offense was correctly categorized.
-
553 F.2d 1219·
10th Cir.·
1977-03-03
·cited 18×
The court held that the reasons provided for denying parole release satisfied the Administrative Procedure Act and due process requirements, and that the application of parole guidelines was permissible under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
-
788 F.2d 85·
2d Cir.·
1986-04-15
·cited 17×
The court held that the Parole Commission's procedures were not untimely and that any potential delay did not warrant habeas relief absent prejudice or bad faith. The court also denied the request for assigned counsel.
-
413 F.2d 256·
9th Cir.·
1969-06-06
·cited 16×
The admission of a codefendant's confession implicating Leroy, and Leroy's silence in response, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials, so Ivy's confrontation claim fa
-
782 F.2d 143·
10th Cir.·
1986-01-21
·cited 14×
The military gave full and fair consideration to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus the federal court was not required to grant the writ.
-
618 F.2d 507·
8th Cir.·
1980-04-22
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate sentence, discovery requests, or the motion to reopen the judgment, as the appellant failed to show good cause or present claims warranting an evidentiary hearing.
-
584 F.2d 1208·
2d Cir.·
1978-10-02
·cited 14×
A federal prisoner granted parole but not yet released is entitled to due process procedural safeguards in a parole rescission hearing, though not necessarily all those required for parole revocation.
-
640 F.2d 1116·
9th Cir.·
1981-04-03
·cited 12×
The court held that a post-sentencing order restricting a prisoner's mail privileges, issued ex parte without notice, is equivalent to a sentence for the purpose of collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the petition to vaca
-
563 F.2d 239·
5th Cir.·
1977-11-17
·cited 12×
The district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to entertain a motion to vacate a sentence when the parole guidelines were published and applicable before sentencing, even if the sentencing judge was unaware of their specific impact.
-
337 F.2d 753·
5th Cir.·
1964-10-05
·cited 10×
The court, in dissent, holds that leave to appeal in forma pauperis should be granted, as the movant is considered in federal custody for the purpose of testing the legality of his sentence.
-
536 F.2d 459·
1st Cir.·
1976-06-10
·cited 8×
The court held that a federal prisoner's challenge to the execution of his sentence, including the application of Parole Board guidelines, cannot be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as that statute only grants jurisdiction for claims attacking the legality or imposition of a sente
-
815 F.2d 1433·
11th Cir.·
1987-05-04
·cited 6×
Federal prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages when providing information to the Parole Commission, as this activity is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.
-
688 F.2d 56·
8th Cir.·
1982-09-09
·cited 6×
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to address the Parole Commission's records, but suggested the Commission correct any errors.
-
601 F.2d 805·
5th Cir.·
1979-08-29
·cited 6×
A federal prisoner seeking post-conviction relief must file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, and may only seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
-
2020 WL 2425731·
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-02
·cited 4×
The court held that a federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 habeas petition to challenge the denial of home confinement or compassionate release when the sentencing court is available and § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective.
-
843 F.2d 1160·
9th Cir.·
1988-04-07
·cited 4×
A section 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not an adequate or effective substitute for a section 2255 motion when the sentencing court is allegedly biased, as remedies like recusal or disqualification exist.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-10
·cited 2×
The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, finding she failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and that her arguments were either untimely or legally insufficient.
-
767 F. Supp. 2d 1340·
S.D. Fla.·
2011-02-23
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report, denying the habeas corpus petition because the Bureau of Prisons' cancellation of the Spanish RDAP program did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
-
613 F. Supp. 127·
S.D. Fla.·
1985-06-21
·cited 2×
A district court has the inherent power to grant bail in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a parolee, provided exceptional circumstances are shown.
-
423 F.2d 1146·
8th Cir.·
1970-04-07
·cited 2×
A federal prisoner serving a state sentence may file a motion to vacate a federal sentence that has not yet commenced, as 'custody' under § 2255 is interpreted broadly to encompass the entire duration of imprisonment.
-
2025 WL 2432501·
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-16
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff's release from custody moots his habeas corpus petition, and that a habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for civil rights claims.
-
11th Cir.·
2026-05-06
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory detention without bond for unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the United States; rather, it applies only to aliens who are both "applicants for admission" and actively "seeking admission" (lawful entry after inspection)
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-15
The pro se habeas corpus petition is denied because the claims are not cognizable under § 2241 and the detention is not constitutionally excessive.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-14
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed because the petitioner's 'next friend' lacks standing and federal courts should abstain from intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings under the Younger doctrine.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-06
The court held that a federal habeas petition filed by a pretrial detainee must be dismissed if state remedies are unexhausted and Younger abstention applies due to ongoing state criminal proceedings.
-
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.
-
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.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-02
The court held that a federal habeas petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings should be dismissed as duplicative and subject to abstention under the Younger doctrine.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-26
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings is subject to Younger abstention, and claims regarding conditions of confinement must be brought as a civil rights action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-26
The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were either not cognizable in habeas, failed on the merits, or were moot.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-25
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and alternatively denied on the merits.
-
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.·
2025-09-12
The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a federal prisoner's habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of his convictions and sentence, as the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-08
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus claim for unlawful detention was premature because the six-month period for removal had not yet passed.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-08-18
The court held that the First Step Act's amendment to the Good Conduct Time statute does not require retroactive recalculation of credits for completed sentences, and the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.