From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crenshaw v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 29, 2010
Case No. 1:10-CV-00047, 1:06-CR-00594 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-CV-00047, 1:06-CR-00594.

January 29, 2010


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


On January 8, 2010, Oneal Crenshaw ("Crenshaw") filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion, he argued that the Federal Bureau of Prisons erred in computing his credit for time served. Because Crenshaw contests the manner in which his sentence is being executed and not the legality of the sentence imposed, his challenge should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and not pursuant to § 2255. See United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). A petition pursuant to § 2241 must be "directed to the person having custody of the person detained." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Crenshaw is currently housed in Adelanto, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the Central District of California. Because this court lacks personal jurisdiction over his custodian, Crenshaw's petition is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Crenshaw v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 29, 2010
Case No. 1:10-CV-00047, 1:06-CR-00594 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Crenshaw v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:ONEAL CRENSHAW, Defendant-Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 29, 2010

Citations

Case No. 1:10-CV-00047, 1:06-CR-00594 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2010)