Galloway v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix

358 F. App'x 301
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedDecember 24, 2009
DocketNo. 09-3570
StatusPublished

This text of 358 F. App'x 301 (Galloway v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Galloway v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix, 358 F. App'x 301 (3d Cir. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rashford Galloway appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal raises no substantial question, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

Galloway is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix. He is currently serving a 150-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Galloway filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the district of his confinement. In his petition Royal asserts that he was not given credit for the time that he was confined at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (“NOCC”).1 The District Court dismissed his petition after concluding that Galloway sought relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that his petition thus should have been filed in the sentencing court. The District Court held in the alternative that his petition, if construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, should be dismissed because Galloway did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

Galloway’s claim that he should receive credit for time served in NOCC is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he is challenging the execution of his sentence. See Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 255 n. 2 (3d Cir.2008); Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 313-14 (3d Cir.2007). However, because Galloway did not exhaust his administrative remedies, as he concedes in his notice of appeal, his petition properly was dismissed for failure to exhaust. See Callwood v. Enos, 230 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir.2000) (“we have consistently applied an exhaustion requirement to claims brought under § 2241”).

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

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

Related

Queen v. Miner
530 F.3d 253 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Vega v. United States
493 F.3d 310 (Third Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 F. App'x 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galloway-v-warden-of-fci-fort-dix-ca3-2009.