Cardenas-Meneses v. Martin, 3:18-CV-58-DPJ-FKB. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20181114f24
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , Chief District Judge . This habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 is before the Court on the unopposed Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [15] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommends dismissal of Petitioner Joel Cardenas-Meneses's Petition for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, Judge Ball notes that a challenge to an underlying conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in the court of conviction rather than
Summary: ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN, III , Chief District Judge . This habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 is before the Court on the unopposed Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [15] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommends dismissal of Petitioner Joel Cardenas-Meneses's Petition for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, Judge Ball notes that a challenge to an underlying conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in the court of conviction rather than ..
More
ORDER
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, Chief District Judge.
This habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the Court on the unopposed Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [15] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball recommends dismissal of Petitioner Joel Cardenas-Meneses's Petition for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, Judge Ball notes that a challenge to an underlying conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court of conviction rather than as a § 2241 petition in the district of incarceration. And Judge Ball explains that Cardenas-Meneses's Petition does not establish that a remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or unavailable so as to fall within the "savings clause" exception of § 2255. Cardenas-Meneses failed to file objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has now expired.
The Court, having fully reviewed the unopposed R&R, and being advised in the premises, finds that the R&R should be adopted as the opinion of the Court.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Report and Recommendation [15] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of the Court. The Petition is dismissed. A separate final judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
