Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01120/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01120-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1120

___________

Juan Estrada, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Linda Sanders, Warden, FCI *

Forrest City, Arkansas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

--------------------------------------- *

*

Juan Estrada, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Alison Luekefeld, DAP Coordinator, *

FCI - Forrest City; Francene Helaire, *

Case Manager, FCI - Forrest City; *

Mark Tipton, Unit Manager, FCI - *

Forrest City; Tracy Guthrie, Case *

Manager Coordinator, FCI - Forrest *

City; Linda Sanders, Warden, FCI - *

Forrest City; Jesse Jones, DAP *

Coordinator, South Central Regional *

Office; G. Maldonado Jr., Director, *

South Central Regional Office; Harrell *

Watts, Administrator, National Inmate *

Appeals; Harley Lappin, Director, *

Appellate Case: 07-1120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2007 Entry ID: 3308116
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

Federal Bureau of Prisons; James *

D. Crook, Supervisory Attorney, *

Federal Bureau of Prisons; Does, *

other unknown Federal Bureau of *

Prisons staff at FCI - Forrest City, *

South Central Regional Office in *

Dallas Texas, Federal Bureau of *

Prisons’ Central Office in Washington *

DC and Federal Bureau of Prisons’ *

Consolidated Legal Center in *

Oklahoma, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2007

Filed: 

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Estrada appeals following the district court’s1

 dismissal of his petition for

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Reviewing the issues de novo, we

conclude the dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Appellate Case: 07-1120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2007 Entry ID: 3308116