IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

EARL FRANCIS HART § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-165

WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT § 

ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS ADOPTING

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Earl Francis Hart, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in

Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241.

The Court referred thismatterto theHonorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the Petition.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. Petitionerfiled Objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes the

Objections are without merit. 

Petitioner contends that his sentence is illegal because he does not qualify as an armed career

criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) or as a career offender under United States

Case 1:23-cv-00165-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 10/22/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 47
Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 606 (2015) (holding that

the residual clause of the ACCA, which allowed for the enhancement of a sentence for being a felon

in possession of a firearm, was unconstitutionally vague). Inmost cases, a post-conviction challenge

to a federal conviction or sentence must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing

court. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). The “savings clause” of § 2255 allows

a prisoner pursue relief under § 2241 only if it appears that the remedy by § 2255 motion “is

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A prior

unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255

motion, does not make § 2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878. 

In this case, the savings clause does not provide Petitioner with an avenue for post-conviction

relief under § 2241. Petitioner was able to raise his claims in a § 2255 motion. The sentencing court

considered the merits of Petitioner’s claims and concluded that he was not entitled to relief. 

Petitioner’s lack of success in pursuing relief under § 2255 motion does not meet his burden of

demonstrating that § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy, such that he should be allowed to

pursue the same claims in a § 2241 petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections [Dkt. 5] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and 

the conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the magistrate judge’s Report and

2

Case 1:23-cv-00165-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 10/22/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 48
Recommendation [Dkt. 3]is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance

with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

3

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 22nd day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00165-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 10/22/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 49