Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00203/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00203-0/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 (federa

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY OTIS BURTON, ) 

# 175034, ) 

) 

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 

) 2:08cv203-MHT 

GARY HETZEL, et al., ) (WO) 

)

 Respondents. )

 

OPINION AND ORDER

After the court’s independent and de novo review of

the record in this case, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The respondents' objections (Doc. No. 18) are

overruled.

(2) The magistrate judge's recommendation (Doc. No.

17) is adopted.

(3) This case is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take

appropriate steps to effect the transfer.

Case 2:08-cv-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/08/08 Page 1 of 5
1. See Burton v. Mitchem, 2:98cv1224-ID (M.D. Ala.

Oct. 18, 2000).

2

The court adds these thoughts. The respondents point

out that, under Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th

Cir. 2003), a state prisoner in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a state court who seeks federal habeas relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the additional

restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondents

contend that, because the petitioner is in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court, the instant

petition is subject to the § 2254 provision that requires

a petitioner to obtain permission from the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals before filing a second or

successive habeas petition in the district court. See 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) and 2244(b)(2). The respondents

further argue that, because the petitioner has not

obtained such permission from the Eleventh Circuit and

because he filed a previous habeas petition in this court

challenging his conviction and sentence,1

 this court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition and must

Case 2:08-cv-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/08/08 Page 2 of 5
2. The respondents’ arguments in this regard

overlook the following passage in Medberry:

“Finally, Appellant points out that the

§ 2244(b)(2) provision governing

successive petitions, by its terms,

would not permit a § 2254 petition

challenging prison disciplinary

proceedings where a petitioner has

brought an earlier petition challenging

his conviction or sentence. We

disagree. The term “‘second or

successive’ remains a term of art that

must be given meaning by reference to

both the body of case law developed

before the enactment of AEDPA and the

policies that prompted AEDPA's

enactment.” Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d

720, 725 (8th Cir. 2001). We agree with

the decisions issued by many of our

sister circuits that a petition

challenging such disciplinary

proceedings would not be second or

successive where the claim could not

have been raised in an earlier petition

and does not otherwise constitute an

abuse of the writ. See James v. Walsh,

308 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2002); Hill

v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th

Cir. 2002); Crouch, 251 F.3d at 725; In

re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 236-37 (5th Cir.

1998).”

(continued...)

3

dismiss it rather than transferring it under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).2

Case 2:08-cv-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/08/08 Page 3 of 5
2. (...continued)

351 F.3d at 1061-62. The claims that the petitioner

asserts in the instant habeas petition could not have

arisen when he filed his first habeas petition with this

court in 1998. 

4

However, this court does not read Medberry to

undercut the Supreme Court’s holding that a habeas

petition seeking the relief afforded through 28 U.S.C. §

2241 must be filed in the federal district court for the

district in which the petitioner's custodian is located.

See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-36 (2004);

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410

U.S. 484 (1973). Because the petitioner does not

challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence, this

court conditionally believes the instant petition to be

subject to the requirements for habeas petitions filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that the petitioner

therefore should have filed his petition in the district

court for the district in which his custodian is located.

Consequently, this court has transferred this case

without reaching the merits of the respondents’ argument

Case 2:08-cv-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/08/08 Page 4 of 5
that the instant petition constitutes a second or

successive habeas petition within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(3)(A) and 2244(b)(2). Whether there is

merit in the respondents’ argument in this regard is an

issue left open for the transferee court. 

DONE, this the 8th day of August, 2008. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:08-cv-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/08/08 Page 5 of 5