Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00071/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00071-1/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

Robert Meeks, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Conrad M. Graber, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0071-TUC-RCC (CRP)

ORDER

Petitioner Robert Meeks, who is confined in the Federal Correctional InstitutionSafford, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

(Docs. 10, 12). On August 31, 2011, the Honorable Charles R. Pyle, United States

Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action.

(Doc. 33). The Recommendation advised the Court to DENY the Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. 

Petitioner thereafter filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 35). Petitioner

argues in his Petitioner and objections that Johnson v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010),

represents newly decided that renders him actually innocent of twice violating 28 U.S.C. §

924(c). Magistrate Judge Pyle disagreed because Johnson’s holding was limited to

construing language in 28 U.S.C. § 924(e) and is inapposite to this case. He further

concluded the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this Petition because Petitioner’s

claim does not fall within the savings clause of § 2241.

Case 4:10-cv-00071-RCC Document 38 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Having reading Johnson and all other relevant authorities, the Court finds that is does

not constitute new law relevant to Petitioner’s convictions. Since Johnson is not new

relevant law, this Petition does not fall within § 2241's savings clause, and the Court does not

have jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Recommendation.

(Doc. 33).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition (Docs. 10, 12) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Objection

Number Six (Doc. 37).

DATED this 20th day of December, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00071-RCC Document 38 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2