Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00129/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Freeman,

Petitioner,

v.

M. Gutierrez,

Respondent.

No. CV-24-00129-TUC-RCC (MSA)

ORDER 

On August 8, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner James 

Freeman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 11.) Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R 

(Doc. 12), and Respondent filed a response. (Doc. 13.) Upon review, the Court will adopt 

the R&R and dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is dependent upon whether a 

party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s factual or legal determinations, 

the district court need not review the decision “under a de novo or any other standard.”

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a party objects, the district court 

must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 

properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 4:24-cv-00129-RCC Document 14 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. DISCUSSION

First, Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that Jones v. 

Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), “bars all § 2241 petitions.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) The magistrate 

judge did not state that Jones precluded all § 2241 petitions. The magistrate judge 

summarized that typically defendants have one shot to collaterally attack the legality of 

their sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 11 at 2 (first citing Pavulak v. Blanckensee, 

14 F.4th 895, 896 (9th Cir. 2021); then citing Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th 

Cir. 2012).) The magistrate judge indicated that subsequent attacks are barred unless the 

claim is based on “newly discovered evidence” or “a new rule of constitutional law.” (Id. 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).) However, the magistrate judge noted an exception exists 

wherein a defendant can collaterally attack their sentence by filing a § 2241 petition if the 

original § 2255 was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [their] detention.” (Id.

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).) Previously, this included claims based on statutory 

reinterpretation, the magistrate judge stated; however, after Jones, statutory 

reinterpretation arguments were no longer a permissible avenue for relief under § 2241. 

(Id. at 2–3 (citing Jones, 599 U.S. at 477–78, 480).) Petitioner’s statutory argument—that 

“his state court conviction no longer qualified as a predicate offense for his federal 

sentencing enhancement”—was precluded because it was based on statutory 

reinterpretation. (Id.) Because of this, the magistrate judge concluded, the Court had no 

jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition. (Id.) This summary of the effect of 

Jones on this Court’s ability to grant Petitioner relief was correct. 

Next, Petitioner contends that the ruling in Jones applies only to cases involving 

statutory challenges, but not his petition, which he claims is based on a reliance on a change 

in the standard of review for courts to use in certain situations. (Doc. 12 at 2.) As the 

magistrate judge accurately summarized, Petitioner’s claim is “that, in view of Mathis v. 

United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), 

his state-court [sex offense] conviction [under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(e) and 2252(A)(b)(1)]

no longer qualifies as a predicate for his federal sentencing enhancement. Therefore, he 

says, he is actually innocent of the enhancement and his sentence must be vacated.” (Doc. 

Case 4:24-cv-00129-RCC Document 14 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 at 2.) Despite Petitioner’s argument to the contrary, this is a statutory interpretation 

claim. See Arazola-Galea v. United States, 876 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(concluding Mathis is a reinterpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act); Ezell v. United 

States, 778 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Descamps is a statutory interpretation case.”).

Third, Petitioner seems to be arguing that the magistrate judge read Jones too 

broadly, and the case should “be narrowly applied only to cases where the prisoner seeks 

to be granted relief [o]n the basis of a NEW interpretation of an existing CRIMINAL 

STATUTE, which is what Jones did and the Court said could not be done.” (Doc. 12 at 3.)

As stated previously, the magistrate judge did not find that Jones was so broad that it 

abrogated all § 2241 habeas petitions, only those based on statutory reinterpretation, which 

is the essence of Petitioner’s claim.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court, having reviewed the objections, responses, and upon de novo review of 

the issues raised, adopts the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aguilera. Petitioner’s § 

2241 habeas petition is not based on “newly discovered evidence” or “a new rule of 

constitutional law” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Nor can Petitioner raise his claim 

under the saving clause—Petitioner “cannot bring it at all.” Jones, 599 U.S. at 480.

Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1) Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED 

IN FULL. 

2) Petitioner James Freeman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.)

3) The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter.

Dated this 12th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:24-cv-00129-RCC Document 14 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 3