Filed: Jan. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Petitioner Jose Duarte-Acero ("Duarte-Acero") asserts that the Court should determine whether he is being detained in violation of a treaty to which the United States of America is a party. Duarte-Acero also asserts that the United States Supreme Court
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Petitioner Jose Duarte-Acero ("Duarte-Acero") asserts that the Court should determine whether he is being detained in violation of a treaty to which the United States of America is a party. Duarte-Acero also asserts that the United States Supreme Court ..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Petitioner Jose Duarte-Acero ("Duarte-Acero") asserts that the Court should determine whether he is being detained in violation of a treaty to which the United States of America is a party. Duarte-Acero also asserts that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed foreign nationals to challenge treaty violations in habeas proceedings. Duarte-Acero cites, inter alia, Bouniediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), and Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), in support of this assertion. Duarte-Acero avers that the predicate underlying his claims could not have come into existence until 2004 at the earliest, and, by that time, he had already filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Duarte-Acero contends that, because he cannot bring his treaty-based claim in a second or successive section 2255 motion, his claim is properly before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
In Bouniediene, the petitioners were "aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba[,]" 553 U.S. at 732, and the Supreme Court found that the "constitutional privilege of habeas corpus[,]" extended to the petitioners. Id. Duarte-Acero is not an enemy combatant, nor is he detained at Guantanamo Bay. Thus, this case is inapplicable. Likewise, Medellin does not provide Duarte-Acero with any relief under § 2241. The Supreme Court, in Medellin, "conclude[d] that neither Avena1 nor the President's Memorandum2 constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions." 552 U.S. at 498-99. In addition, and as the Magistrate Judge noted, a petitioner cannot bring a treaty-based claim pursuant to section 2241 in an attempt to circumvent the restrictions on filing successive 2255 motions, which is precisely what Duarte-Acero attempts to do in his petition. (Doc. No. 10, p. 5) (citing Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Duarte-Acero's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Duarte-Acero's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
