Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_09-cv-00159/USCOURTS-ared-2_09-cv-00159-1/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHNNY L. BUTLER PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 2:09CV00159 HLJ

T. C. OUTLAW, Warden, 

FCI, Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. Any party may

serve and file written objections to this recommendation.

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or

legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual

finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that

supports your objection. An original and one copy of your

objections must be received in the office of the United States

District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date

of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to

the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result

in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to

submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a

hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

Case 2:09-cv-00159-BRW Document 17 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 5
2

the same time that you file your written objections, include the

following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the

District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced

at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of

an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any

documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to

be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the

necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the

Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

On March 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Butler v. Sanders, No.

2:07CV00041, contending he is entitled to credit on a federal

sentence he received in 1991 for 407 days during which he was held

by federal officials awaiting trial on federal charges in

Tennessee. This court found he had been given credit for those

days on a state sentence he received in Florida, and it dismissed

Case 2:09-cv-00159-BRW Document 17 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 5
1 Petitioner named the Bureau of Prisons as the Respondent,

and served the United States Attorney General in Washington, D.C.

3

the petition on July 28, 2008. Butler v. Sanders, 2008 WL 2945590

(E.D.Ark. July 28, 2008). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

summarily affirmed that decision, Butler v. Sanders, No. 08-3126

(8th Cir. February 2, 2009), and the United States Supreme Court

denied certiorari on June 1, 2009. Butler v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct.

2753 (2009). 

On June 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a second § 2241 petition in

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,1

again challenging the computation of his federal sentence and

seeking credit on his federal sentence for the 407 days. The

District of Columbia court transferred the petition to this

district on October 23, 2009. DE #10, #11. 

This court has previously determined Petitioner’s claim.

Section 2244(a) provides that “[n]o circuit or district judge shall

be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus

to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of

a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of

such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the

United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus,

except as provided in [28 U.S.C. § 2255].” Since this section

refers to a person held “pursuant to a judgment of a court of the

United States,” it embraces petitions under § 2255 and § 2241. 

Case 2:09-cv-00159-BRW Document 17 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 5
4

Section 2255 provides:

A second or successive motion must be certified as

provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate

court of appeals to contain--

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven

and viewed in light of the evidence as a

whole, would be sufficient to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that no

reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by

the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.

The very language of this section of § 2255 limits its

application to petitions challenging convictions, which are

ordinarily brought only under § 2255, because the language simply

cannot be applied to challenges to the execution of sentences, such

as in the present action under § 2241. Valona v. U.S., 138 F.3d

693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Section 2244(b)(3)(A), provides that, before a “second or

successive” § 2254 petition is filed in the district court, the

petitioner must first obtain authorization in the appropriate court

of appeals. The language of this section limits its application to

§ 2254 petitions. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656 (1996);

Valona v. U.S., 138 F.3d at 694. This court agrees with the Third

Circuit’s conclusion that “[i]n enacting AEDPA, Congress was

focusing on the problem of repetitive habeas challenges to criminal

convictions, state and federal,” and it “did not undertake to

Case 2:09-cv-00159-BRW Document 17 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 5
5

address the dissimilar categories of habeas petitions filed under

§ 2241....” Zayas v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 247, 258 (3rd Cir. 2002). 

I find the language in § 2244(a) is absolute as it relates to

§ 2241 petitions, and that it is directed to circuit courts and

district courts. Thus, I find Petitioner is not required to obtain

authorization from the Eighth Circuit to proceed here, because this

court has previously determined the issues raised by Petitioner,

and he has not raised any circumstances that would preclude the

application of § 2244(a).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this petition be, and it is

hereby, dismissed with prejudice. The relief prayed for is denied.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2010.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:09-cv-00159-BRW Document 17 Filed 02/18/10 Page 5 of 5