Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140410_0000375.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 14:09:02
Document Index: 495428615

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241']

By Memorandum Opinion and Final Order entered August 1, 2013, the Court dismissed Monte DeCarlos Winston's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241[1] for abuse of the writ. Winston v. U.S. Att'y. Gen., No. 3:12CV172, 2013 WL 3967292, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2013). Winston has abused the writ by filing at least three 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petitions challenging the execution or calculation of his federal and state sentences. See id. Because of Winston's history of abusive filings, the Court placed certain prefiling restrictions on any new action challenging the calculation or execution of his sentence. Id . Specifically, the Court directed:
Winston has filed a new 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Winston's instant § 2241 petition is yet another attempt to challenge the Bureau of Prison's ("BOP") execution of his sentence recast as a challenge to "the validity of the ad prosequendum writ" to gain custody of Winston. (§ 2241 Pet. 7-9.) Winston "want[s] the court to determine whether the ad prosequendum writ used to secure Petitioner's custody was valid, or not valid." (Id. at 9.)
The Court views the arguments raised in Winston's current § 2241 Petition as yet another attempt to challenge to the execution of his sentence. Winston has failed to comply with the certification requirements outlined in the Court's August 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Winston's § 2241 Petition will be denied and the action will be dismissed.
Winston also filed a Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 2). Winston requests a change of venue and explains that "[a] direct conflict of interest arises, because a number of court officers out of this district court have a direct interest in this writ issue not being reviewed on the merits." (Mot. Change Venue 1.) Winston has not established that a change of venue is appropriate, and his ...