RUSS v. DIXON

N.D. Florida

RUSS v. DIXON

DecidedNovember 21, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00202

StatusUnknown

This text of RUSS v. DIXON (RUSS v. DIXON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

RUSS v. DIXON, (N.D. Fla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

STANLEIGH RUSS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:22cv202-TKW-HTC

RICKY DIXON,

Defendant. ______________________/ ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) and Petitioner’s objection (Doc. 6). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner has not stated a plausible claim for habeas relief. The Court did not overlook the cases cited by Petitioner for the proposition that a §2241 habeas petition can be used to seek expungement of a disciplinary report if expungement is likely to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole. Doc. 6 at 2 (citing Bostic v. Calrson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), and McCollum v. Miller, 695 F. 2d 1044, 1047 (7th Cir. 1982)). However, putting aside the fact that those out-of-Circuit cases are not binding on this Court and one of them (Bostic) was Page 2 of 2

subsequently overruled, see Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), those cases do not help Petitioner because he is ineligible for parole or

any other form of early release since the Department of Corrections’ website indicates that he is serving a life sentence for an offense committed in 2012—long after Florida abolished parole. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing $2254 Cases. 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2022.

/ / T.KENT WETHERELL,I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 5:22cv202-TKW-HTC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

STANLEIGH RUSS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:22cv202-TKW-HTC

RICKY DIXON,

Defendant. ______________________/ ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) and Petitioner’s objection (Doc. 6). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner has not stated a plausible claim for habeas relief. The Court did not overlook the cases cited by Petitioner for the proposition that a §2241 habeas petition can be used to seek expungement of a disciplinary report if expungement is likely to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole. Doc. 6 at 2 (citing Bostic v. Calrson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), and McCollum v. Miller, 695 F. 2d 1044, 1047 (7th Cir. 1982)). However, putting aside the fact that those out-of-Circuit cases are not binding on this Court and one of them (Bostic) was Page 2 of 2

subsequently overruled, see Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), those cases do not help Petitioner because he is ineligible for parole or

any other form of early release since the Department of Corrections’ website indicates that he is serving a life sentence for an offense committed in 2012—long after Florida abolished parole. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing $2254 Cases. 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2022.

/ / T.KENT WETHERELL,I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 5:22cv202-TKW-HTC

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RUSS v. DIXON, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russ-v-dixon-flnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack