Williams v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low

M.D. Florida

Williams v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low

DecidedSeptember 21, 2021

Docket5:21-cv-00365

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low (Williams v. Warden, FCC 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

Williams v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low, (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

WALTER L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No: 5:21-cv-365-TPB-PRL

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN – LOW,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner initiated this civil action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner argues he is entitled to a reduction of his federal criminal sentence because the imposed Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing enhancement has been found unconstitutional in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), (id. at 6). 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. The Eleventh Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds. McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 2017); Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). None of those grounds are present in this case, and thus Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under § 2241. See, e.g., In re Albertie, No. 21-12796-H (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021) (Rosenbaum, J., concurring) (“And in this Circuit, Albertie’s [Borden] claim is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), either because in McCarthan|[,] by which we are bound, we held that a prisoner may file a second or successive claim for habeas relief, challenging his conviction through that subsection only when the sentencing court is unavailable.”). Thus, this case is due to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 21st day of September, 2021.

—~ bse iG TOMBARBER □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Jax-7 C: Walter L. Williams, 53136-018

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

WALTER L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No: 5:21-cv-365-TPB-PRL

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN – LOW,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner initiated this civil action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner argues he is entitled to a reduction of his federal criminal sentence because the imposed Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing enhancement has been found unconstitutional in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), (id. at 6). 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. The Eleventh Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not available to challenge the validity of a sentence except on very narrow grounds. McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 2017); Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). None of those grounds are present in this case, and thus Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under § 2241. See, e.g., In re Albertie, No. 21-12796-H (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021) (Rosenbaum, J., concurring) (“And in this Circuit, Albertie’s [Borden] claim is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), either because in McCarthan|[,] by which we are bound, we held that a prisoner may file a second or successive claim for habeas relief, challenging his conviction through that subsection only when the sentencing court is unavailable.”). Thus, this case is due to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 21st day of September, 2021.

—~ bse iG TOMBARBER □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Jax-7 C: Walter L. Williams, 53136-018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-warden-fcc-coleman-low-flmd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack