-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-12-28
The court held that a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed if the claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the petitioner requests conversion.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2021-09-27
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and his claim for sentence credit for time spent on bond under supervision is without merit.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-08-12
The federal court dismissed the habeas petition because Younger abstention doctrine applied, requiring deference to ongoing state criminal proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-26
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed as moot because the petitioner is no longer housed at the facility where the alleged conditions of confinement occurred and the relief sought is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-07-12
A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-05-03
The court held that a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for claims seeking monetary relief for alleged violations of constitutional rights and conditions of confinement.
-
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
A federal prisoner cannot use a § 2241 habeas petition to challenge a sentence if a § 2255 motion was available and adequate, even if the prior motion was unsuccessful.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-07
The court held that a petition for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) must be filed in the sentencing court, not in a habeas corpus petition in the current facility's district.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-30
A pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied because the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Florida Department of Corrections.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-18
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to order the Bureau of Prisons to place a prisoner in home confinement, as such decisions are exclusively within the BOP's discretion.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-02
A defective Notice to Appear (NTA) that fails to specify the time and place of removal proceedings does not divest the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the resulting removal order under the REAL
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-10-08
A pro se inmate's petition challenging prison conditions, even if styled as a habeas corpus petition, should be construed as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-17
The court held that the petitioner's challenge to her detention was moot because she was released from custody and placed in an Alternatives to Detention program, and she failed to demonstrate remaining collateral consequences or a reasonable expectation of facing the same situat
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-16
The court held that the petitioner's prolonged detention did not violate his due process rights because his actions in seeking stays of removal interrupted the statutory removal period.
-
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.·
2020-07-13
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not the proper avenue for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of his confinement or seek compassionate release; such claims must be brought as a civil rights action or before the sentencing court, respectively.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-09
The court held that it lacked authority to grant compassionate release and that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for injunctive relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-26
The court held that release is not an appropriate remedy for conditions of confinement claims, and the conditions at the detention facilities did not violate petitioners' due process rights under the deliberate indifference standard.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-18
The court held that it must abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine due to ongoing state criminal proceedings, and therefore denied the motion to amend as futile and dismissed the case.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-30
The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits, as there was 'some evidence' to support the findings and the process afforded met constitutional minimums.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-23
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and his claims were not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition because they challenged prison conditions, not the fact or duration of his confinement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-11-18
A federal prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief must first exhaust available administrative remedies, and the Bureau of Prisons has discretion to designate the facility where a federal sentence is served.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-24
A federal prisoner's inability to meet the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective, thus precluding the use of § 2241.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-16
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was untimely because it was filed more than seven years after his conviction became final, and he failed to establish actual innocence or meet the requirements for the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-03
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims were challenges to the validity of his sentence, which should have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he had already exhausted that avenue without au
-
N.D. Fla.·
2019-10-02
The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, thus denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing the petition.
-
929 F.2d 228·
6th Cir.·
1991-03-26
The court held that a parolee's Fifth Amendment rights are not violated unless 'certain non-criminal sanctions' are imposed as a direct result of refusing to testify, and that ineffective assistance of counsel requires showing both deficient performance and prejudice.
-
898 F.2d 751·
9th Cir.·
1990-03-19
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition, finding no merit to the petitioner's claims regarding his federal sentence, due process, or custodial status.
-
827 F.2d 313·
8th Cir.·
1987-08-24
The court held that time spent at liberty pending appeal of a sentence reduction order is not considered time 'in custody' and therefore is not credited against the sentence.
-
739 F.2d 403·
8th Cir.·
1984-07-30
The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in setting a parole date above the applicable guidelines, as it established good cause for its decision.
-
531 F.2d 837·
7th Cir.·
1976-03-16
The court held that the petitioner's claims were moot due to his release and that prior decisions requiring reasons for parole denial were not retroactive to his case.