Joseph Donelson v. Warden Loretto FCI , 566 F. App'x 111 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • BLD-242                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-1171
    ___________
    JOSEPH DONELSON,
    Appellant
    v.
    WARDEN LORETTO FCI
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (W.D. Pa. Civil No. 13-cv-00189)
    District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    May 1, 2014
    Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: May 7, 2014)
    _________________
    OPINION
    _________________
    PER CURIAM
    Joseph Donelson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
    In 2008, Donelson was convicted in the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was
    sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the
    Seventh Circuit affirmed. United States v. Donelson, 326 F. App’x 938 (7th Cir. 2009)
    (non-precedential decision). In 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of Illinois denied Donelson’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    § 2255. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Donelson’s
    request for a certificate of appealability.
    In 2013, Donelson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court adopted the
    Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny the petition because Donelson’s claims were
    cognizable under § 2255, not § 2241, and he had already sought relief under § 2255
    without success. Donelson filed an appeal, which he later withdrew. See W.D. Pa. Civ.
    No. 13-cv-00005.
    Donelson then filed the present § 2241 habeas petition in the Western District of
    Pennsylvania. He claims that he is unlawfully detained because the United States
    Marshal did not sign and file the return portion of his criminal judgment upon his
    2
    commitment as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c).1 As in his prior § 2241 proceeding, the
    District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the petition for
    lack of jurisdiction because Donelson should have raised his claim in a § 2255 motion.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Our standard of
    review of the District Court’s legal conclusions is plenary. Cradle v. United States ex rel.
    Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
    “Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which
    federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in
    violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 
    307 F.3d 117
    , 120 (3d Cir.
    2002). Donelson does not challenge his conviction or the sentence that was imposed for
    his offense, but claims that he is unlawfully detained because the United States Marshall
    did not execute and file his judgment in District Court after he was placed in the custody
    of the Bureau of Prisons. Because Donelson challenges the implementation of his
    sentence, his claim would seem to be best viewed as challenging its execution, a claim
    which is properly brought under § 2241. See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 
    432 F.3d 235
    , 242-43 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting “execution” means to put into effect or carry
    out).
    1
    Under § 3621(c), “[w]hen a prisoner, pursuant to a court order, is placed in the custody
    of a person in charge of a penal or correctional facility, a copy of the order shall be
    delivered to such person as evidence of this authority to hold the prisoner, and the
    original order, with the return endorsed thereon, shall be returned to the court that issued
    it.”
    3
    Even if Donelson’s claim should be brought under § 2241, his doing so here was
    an abuse of the writ because he raised the same claim in his earlier § 2241 proceeding.
    The Magistrate Judge did not discuss the claim in her report, but Donelson’s remedy was
    to pursue the claim in his objections and then in a motion for reconsideration and/or on
    appeal. As noted above, Donselson filed an appeal but then withdrew it. Under 28
    U.S.C. § 2244(a), he may not raise his claim again in another § 2241 petition. See Queen
    v. Miner, 
    530 F.3d 253
    , 254 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding the district court
    properly dismissed a § 2241 petition under § 2244(a) where the issues raised either had
    been, or could have been, decided in a previous action).2
    Accordingly, as this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the
    judgment of the District Court.
    2
    Section 2244(a) provides: No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an
    application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant
    to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such
    detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior
    application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as provided in section 2255. 28 U.S.C.
    § 2244(a).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1171

Citation Numbers: 566 F. App'x 111

Judges: Ambro, Chagares, Per Curiam, Vanaskie

Filed Date: 5/7/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024