Opinion
2:22-cv-00183-KGB-ERE
03-05-2024
MARCUS ALLEN PETITIONER v. JOHN P. YATES[1] RESPONDENT
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin regarding petitioner Marcus Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 2). Judge Ervin recommends that Mr. Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (Id.). Mr. Allen filed untimely objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 3). He also filed various supplemental briefs, motions, and a notice (Dkt. Nos. 4-13). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition and Mr. Allen's objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in all respects (Dkt. No. 2).
In her Recommended Disposition, Judge Ervin conducted the preliminary review of Mr. Allen's § 2241 petition required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Judge Ervin observed the procedural history following Mr. Allen's 2014 criminal conviction, including a series of post-trial motions in his closed criminal case, motions to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and motions challenging his conviction that were dismissed as successive § 2255 petitions (Id., at 2-3). Judge Ervin noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's denial of Mr. Allen's first § 2255 petition, and the Eighth Circuit denied each of Mr. Allen's four subsequent requests for leave to file successive habeas petitions (Id., at 3). Judge Ervin concluded that Mr. Allen's present § 2241 petition raises the same claims from his earlier § 2255 petitions as well as his motions for leave to file successive petitions and “is simply an attempted end-run around the Eighth Circuit's repeated denials of Mr. Allen's requests to file successive § 2255 petitions.” (Id., at 5).
The Court has reviewed Mr. Allen's untimely objections and supplemental filings, and they do not alter this Court's view of the record and controlling law (Dkt. Nos. 3-13). In his objections, Mr. Allen reasserts his position that he can invoke the § 2255 saving clause because he has alleged newly discovered evidence, namely, an investigate report, that he claims proves his original § 2255 petition was ineffective to test the legality of his conviction (Dkt. No. 3, at 2-3). The Court concurs with Judge Ervin's analysis and has adopted it as this Court's own; the Court will not repeat that analysis with respect to Mr. Allen's objections.
The Court adopts the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 2). Accordingly, Mr. Allen's petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 1). The Court denies the relief sought. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. All pending motions are denied as moot (Dkt. Nos. 7-10; 12-13).
It is so ordered