2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-7-2014

Joseph Donelson v. Warden Loretto FCI

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1171

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Joseph Donelson v. Warden Loretto FCI" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 472.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/472
BLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1171

___________

JOSEPH DONELSON,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN LORETTO FCI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(W.D. Pa. Civil No. 13-cv-00189)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 1, 2014

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 7, 2014)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM
2

Joseph Donelson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.

 In 2008, Donelson was convicted in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was 

sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit affirmed. United States v. Donelson, 326 F. App’x 938 (7th Cir. 2009) 

(non-precedential decision). In 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois denied Donelson’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Donelson’s 

request for a certificate of appealability. 

In 2013, Donelson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court adopted the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny the petition because Donelson’s claims were 

cognizable under § 2255, not § 2241, and he had already sought relief under § 2255 

without success. Donelson filed an appeal, which he later withdrew. See W.D. Pa. Civ. 

No. 13-cv-00005.

Donelson then filed the present § 2241 habeas petition in the Western District of 

Pennsylvania. He claims that he is unlawfully detained because the United States 

Marshal did not sign and file the return portion of his criminal judgment upon his 
3

commitment as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c).

1

 As in his prior § 2241 proceeding, the 

District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the petition for 

lack of jurisdiction because Donelson should have raised his claim in a § 2255 motion. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Our standard of 

review of the District Court’s legal conclusions is plenary. Cradle v. United States ex rel. 

Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

“Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which 

federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in 

violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 

2002). Donelson does not challenge his conviction or the sentence that was imposed for 

his offense, but claims that he is unlawfully detained because the United States Marshall 

did not execute and file his judgment in District Court after he was placed in the custody 

of the Bureau of Prisons. Because Donelson challenges the implementation of his 

sentence, his claim would seem to be best viewed as challenging its execution, a claim

which is properly brought under § 2241. See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 

F.3d 235, 242-43 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting “execution” means to put into effect or carry 

out).

 

1Under § 3621(c), “[w]hen a prisoner, pursuant to a court order, is placed in the custody 

of a person in charge of a penal or correctional facility, a copy of the order shall be 

delivered to such person as evidence of this authority to hold the prisoner, and the 

original order, with the return endorsed thereon, shall be returned to the court that issued 

it.” 
4

Even if Donelson’s claim should be brought under § 2241, his doing so here was 

an abuse of the writ because he raised the same claim in his earlier § 2241 proceeding. 

The Magistrate Judge did not discuss the claim in her report, but Donelson’s remedy was 

to pursue the claim in his objections and then in a motion for reconsideration and/or on 

appeal. As noted above, Donselson filed an appeal but then withdrew it. Under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(a), he may not raise his claim again in another § 2241 petition. See Queen 

v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding the district court 

properly dismissed a § 2241 petition under § 2244(a) where the issues raised either had 

been, or could have been, decided in a previous action).

2

Accordingly, as this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the 

judgment of the District Court.

 

2

Section 2244(a) provides: No 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 section 2255. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(a).