1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

LEE DARRELL CRAYTON §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23cv46-RWS-JBB

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Lee Darrell Crayton, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 seeking release from prison. The petition has been referred 

to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and 

Local Rule CV-72 of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

I. Background

Petitioner says that he is seeking release on bail until his petition is adjudicated. He appears 

to be challenging a detainer for a charge of tampering with government documents, for which he 

says he was acquitted at trial, giving the case number of F030419IK from Dallas County. He argues 

that the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas is the proper venue for his claim and 

attaches an order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing a habeas 

petition which he filed. Although Plaintiff discusses the law of habeas corpus at great length, he 

provides no details about his claims, such as when the alleged detainer was imposed.

Court records show that Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus application challenging 

this detainer, in cause no. 3:09cv2427 (N.D. Tex., dismissed with prejudice October 24, 2011, no 

appeal). Petitioner attaches a copy of a judgment in cause no. F030419IK, dated March 21, 2006, 

reflecting that the jury found him not guilty. He also attaches a TDCJtime computation sheet, dated 

August 17, 2009, stating that Petitioner has one detainer.

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 5 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27
2

II. Discussion

The Fifth Circuit has stated that the specific limitations on filing habeas petitions under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 which were enacted under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996, do not literally apply to habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

However, the version of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) which was in effect prior to enactment of the AEDPA 

barssuccessive § 2241 petitions which are based on the same claim. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit 

explains that the present version of § 2244(a), which is very similar to the pre-AEDPA version, 

applies to § 2241 proceedings. Ortloff v. Fleming, 88 F.App’x 715, 716 (5th Cir. 2004).

28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) provides that “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.” A successive petition under § 2241 is subject to 

dismissal as an abuse of the writ when the same legal claims are presented again. Ortiz-Lopez v. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, 830 F.App’x 127, 131 (5th Cir. 2020), citing United States v. 

Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1994) (pre-AEDPA case). A district court’s decision to dismiss 

a second or successive petition as an abuse of the writ lies within the sound discretion of the district 

court. Ortiz-Lopez, 830 F.App’x at 131, citing James v. Cain, 56 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995).

In this case, Petitioner hasfiled a second habeas corpus petition challenging a detainer, when 

his first such petition was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Texas. He furnished documents to the Northern District indicating that he knew about 

this detainer in 2009, over 14 years ago, and state court records do not indicate that he has exhausted 

his state remedies by challenging the detainer in the courts of the State of Texas.1 Upon review of

1

The on-line records ofthe TexasCourt ofCriminal Appeals do notreflect that Petitioner 

hassought relief in state court concerning the alleged detainer. He isrequired to exhaust hisstate 

remedies prior to seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Hutson v. Scott, 74 F.3d 1237, 1995 WL 

783407 (5th Cir. 1995); Dickerson v. State of Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987).

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 5 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28
3

allrelevant factors, theCourt has determined in its discretion that the present application for the writ 

of habeas corpus should be dismissed as an abuse of the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled application forthe writ of habeas corpus 

be dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 26th day of January, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 5 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29