Opinion
EP-05-CA-0347-DB, EP-04-CR-1554-DB.
September 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER OPINION
Before the Court is Petitioner Steven E. Cottingham's ("Cottingham") pro se form Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, to Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Motion to Vacate") [Docket no. 62], filed on September 13, 2005. Therein, Cottingham alleges that he has been improperly denied credit for 10 months he spent in custody for a violation of his supervised release in an unspecified cause before being charged with the offenses at issue in cause no. EP-04-CR-1554-DB.
Such a claim (attacking the method in which a sentence is being executed) is properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is ordinarily used to challenge the method in which a sentence is being executed). The Court therefore concludes that Defendant's Motion to Vacate should be construed as a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Davis v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 487 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that a district court may liberally construe a prisoner's pro se pleading and treat it as a habeas corpus petition, where appropriate).
A § 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner must be filed in the same district where the prisoner is incarcerated. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F3d. 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he district of incarceration is the only district that has jurisdiction to entertain a defendant's § 2241 petition."). Here, the record shows that Cottingham is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary located in Florence, Colorado, which is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Western District of Texas. Because he is not incarcerated in this District, this Court has no jurisdiction to address Cottingham's construed Petition or even to transfer it to the appropriate district. See Lee, 244 F.3d at 373-74. Therefore, the Court concludes that it must dismiss Cottingham's construed Petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court accordingly enters the following orders:
1. Petitioner Steven E. Cottingham's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, to Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket no. 62], filed on September 13, 2005, is CONSTRUED AS a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2. All pending motions in this cause, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.