Opinion
2:11-CR-99-WKW [WO]
04-05-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENTON MAURICE HALL
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the court is Defendant's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 91) of the February 14, 2023 Order (Doc. # 90). The Government has filed a response in opposition. (Doc. # 93.) The motion will be denied.
If Defendant believes that the federal detainer is now moot because he has served his federal sentence (Doc. # 91 at 2) or that the existing federal detainer is inhibiting “custody opportunities” in state prison (Doc. # 81 at 1), he is challenging “the manner in which his sentence is being executed.” United States v. Hudson, No. 97-50960, 1998 WL 611697, at *1 (11th Cir. 1998). The proper course of action is for Defendant to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id.; Johnson v. Wise, No. CA 10-123-WS-C, 2010 WL 3306920, at *4 (S.D. Ala. July 13, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 10-123-WS-C, 2010 WL 3306931 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 19, 2010) (“[W]here the petitioner is challenging the BOP's execution of his federal sentence, the habeas petition is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. # 91) is DENIED.
The requirements for filing a habeas corpus petition are in 28 U.S.C. § 2242.