From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strickland v. English

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-248-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that "Descamps does not open the § 2241 portal" to review the claim under the savings clause

Summary of this case from Patton v. Maiorana
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-248-RS-EMT

08-22-2013

JOSEPH STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. N.C. ENGLISH, Respondent.

RICHARD SMOAK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) and Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 13). I have reviewed the objections de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and addendums/supplements thereto (Docs. 6, 7, 8, 9), filed under 28 U.S.C § 2241, is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on August 22, 2013.

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Summaries of

Strickland v. English

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-248-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)

finding that "Descamps does not open the § 2241 portal" to review the claim under the savings clause

Summary of this case from Patton v. Maiorana

finding that "Descamps does not open the § 2241 portal" to review the claim under the savings clause

Summary of this case from Griffin v. Warden Fed. Corr. Inst. Oakdal

finding Descamps was not retroactive and thus "does not open the § 2241 portal" to review claims under the savings clause

Summary of this case from United States v. Martin

finding Descamps was not retroactive and thus "does not open the § 2241 portal" to review claims under the savings clause

Summary of this case from United States v. Mitchell

stating that, "[t]he Supreme Court has not declared its decision in Descamps to be retroactively applicable on collateral review, nor has the undersigned found any cases applying Descamps retroactively to cases on collateral review."

Summary of this case from Putzier v. United States
Case details for

Strickland v. English

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. N.C. ENGLISH, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

Date published: Aug 22, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-248-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)

Citing Cases

Williams v. C V Rivera

The fact that § 2255 is no longer available to Williams does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective…

Valencia-Mazariegos v. United States

Contrary to Valencia- Mazariegos's assertion, the Supreme Court has not declared its decision in Descamps to…

33 Citing Cases