Lennora Banks-Davis v. United States, No. 18-2025 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not err in dismissing Banks-Davis's Section 2241 petition for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies; dismissal modified to be without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2025 ___________________________ Lennora R. Banks-Davis, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: May 20, 2019 Filed: May 23, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Lennora Banks-Davis appeals after the district court1 denied her relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We agree with the district court that Banks-Davis was not entitled to relief. In this proceeding, she could challenge only the execution of her sentence. She was required first to exhaust her administrative remedies, but she failed to do so. See Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009); see also Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). We conclude, however, that the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice. See Mathena, 577 F.3d at 946. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that Banks-Davis’s section 2241 petition is dismissed without prejudice, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
