Sines v. Wilner, -- F.3d --, 2010 WL 2473163 (10th Cir. 6/21/10) (CO) - affirmance of district court dismissal of 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Mr. Sines argued he was entitled to relief under § 2241 because his remedy under 28 USC § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

The Warden of USP Hazelton, Terry O’Brien (“O’Brien”), denied Fontanez’s request. In June 2014, Fontanez filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of West Virginia. Fontanez argued that he had a claim under § 2241 because he was challenging the execution and not the validity of his sentence.

The Court denied the motion because it fell outside of the statutory exceptions enumerated under §2255. Simultaneously, Surratt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief under Simmons. However, as a federal prisoner, Surratt could not challenge his conviction under Section 2241 unless 28 U.S.C § 2255(e), the “savings clause,” applied, and the district court concluded that it did not give the court jurisdiction to consider Surratt’s claim.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit stressed that it was not unsympathetic to the gravity of Surratt’s sentence of life imprisonment.

Stanko v. Davis, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL XXX, No. 09-1073 (10th Cir. 2010) (CO)Habeas arcania. There are two kinds of federal habes–28 USC § 2241, the traditional habeas petition, and 28 USC § 2255–a motion to vacate etc. a sentence. The ability to file second or successive habeas actions is closely regulated.

28 U.S.C. § 2241Since 2014, Congress has passed an appropriations rider every year stating that no appropriated funds may be used by the Justice Department to prevent states from implementing their own laws legalizing acts relating to medical marijuana. Aaron Sandusky was convicted in federal court of trafficking marijuana. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that his offense conduct was compliant with California state law, and that, during any time that a marijuana appropriations rider is in effect, the BOP cannot expend funds to incarcerate him. The district court dismissed, holding that § 2241 was not the right vehicle for the claim.

Andre Jackson v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1145, 8/12/15Jackson’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin became moot once he was convicted in Wisconsin of the charges for which he was extradited.The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is § 2241. SeeBraden [v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky], 410 U.S. [484,] 488 [(1973)]; [United States ex rel.] Parish [v. Elrod], 589 F.2d [327,] 328 [(7th Cir. 1979].

We hold that LWOP was an authorized sentence and conclude that Appellant’s guilty plea was provident. Ooops, no, I meant Christian v. Commandant.David Christian, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In military court, Christian pleaded guilty to charges relating to multiple acts of sexual misconduct with underage females.

citizens row the circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.After Congress passed a resolution--the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)--empowering the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the President ordered the Armed Forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaeda and quell the supporting Taliban regime. Petitioner Hamdi, an American citizen whom the Government has classified as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban during the conflict, was captured in Afghanistan and presently is detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S. C. Hamdi's father filed this habeas petition on his behalf under 28 U.S.C. sect. 2241 alleging, among other things, that the Government holds his son in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Although the petition did not elaborate on the factual circumstances of Hamdi's capture and detention, his father has asserted in other documents in the record that Hamdi went to Afghanistan to do "relief work" less than two months before September 11 and could not have received military training.

We will affirm." (split panel)Warren v. Miles, No. 00-50117 (5th Cir. 10/13/2000) "Warren appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition filed in the district court for the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Warren maintains that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto legislation by applying its regulations to him retroactively, thereby increasing the punishment for his offense.

We will affirm." (split panel)Warren v. Miles, No. 00-50117 (5th Cir. 10/13/2000) "Warren appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition filed in the district court for the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Warren maintains that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto legislation by applying its regulations to him retroactively, thereby increasing the punishment for his offense.