Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low

M.D. Florida

Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low

DecidedApril 5, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00139

StatusUnknown

This text of Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low (Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low, (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

KENNETH EDMONSON-BEY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No: 5:22-CV-139-WFJ-PRL WARDEN, FCI COLEMAN LOW,

Respondent. ______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by filing a Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction claiming that he was not provided with a copy of the charging document or the search warrant, he was never informed as to the charges and the evidence against him, and there was no real victim to cross examine. See Doc. 1 at 7- 8. Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” See also Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings. Recently, sitting en banc the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds not present in this case. McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries- Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). Thus, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (directing sua sponte dismissal if the petition and records show that the moving party is not entitled to relief), this case is DISMISSED. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this

case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on April 5, 2022. mE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Pro Se Petitioner

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

KENNETH EDMONSON-BEY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No: 5:22-CV-139-WFJ-PRL WARDEN, FCI COLEMAN LOW,

Respondent. ______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by filing a Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction claiming that he was not provided with a copy of the charging document or the search warrant, he was never informed as to the charges and the evidence against him, and there was no real victim to cross examine. See Doc. 1 at 7- 8. Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” See also Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings. Recently, sitting en banc the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds not present in this case. McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries- Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). Thus, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (directing sua sponte dismissal if the petition and records show that the moving party is not entitled to relief), this case is DISMISSED. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this

case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on April 5, 2022. mE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Pro Se Petitioner

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Edmonson-Bey v. Warden, FCI Coleman Low, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmonson-bey-v-warden-fci-coleman-low-flmd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack