Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont

E.D. Texas

Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont

DecidedFebruary 27, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-00474

StatusUnknown

This text of Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont (Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION LESLEY TYRA OWENS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv474 WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Lesley Tyra Owens, an inmate formerly confined at the United States Penitentiary located in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge recommends denying and dismissing the petition. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes petitioner’s objections should be overruled. Petitioner relies on a decision by the Supreme Court of Tennessee from the year 2000 to claim his conviction for aggravated assault is insufficient to qualify as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act for his federal conviction which occurred on June 19, 2009. See State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W. 3d 294 (Tenn. 2000). Petitioner’s claim, therefore, could have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in his first motion to vacate brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner also attempts to reargue the claims asserted in his first § 2255. However, this is not the forum to do so. As set forth in the Report, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) forecloses petitioner’s challenge to his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. ORDER Accordingly, petitioner’s objections ace OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2025.

Michael J. ‘T'runcale United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION LESLEY TYRA OWENS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv474 WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Lesley Tyra Owens, an inmate formerly confined at the United States Penitentiary located in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge recommends denying and dismissing the petition. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes petitioner’s objections should be overruled. Petitioner relies on a decision by the Supreme Court of Tennessee from the year 2000 to claim his conviction for aggravated assault is insufficient to qualify as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act for his federal conviction which occurred on June 19, 2009. See State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W. 3d 294 (Tenn. 2000). Petitioner’s claim, therefore, could have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in his first motion to vacate brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner also attempts to reargue the claims asserted in his first § 2255. However, this is not the forum to do so. As set forth in the Report, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) forecloses petitioner’s challenge to his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. ORDER Accordingly, petitioner’s objections ace OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2025.

Michael J. ‘T'runcale United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Owens v. Warden, USP Beaumont, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-warden-usp-beaumont-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack