Gaddis v. Kilgore, No. 1:2019cv01872 - Document 23 (N.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - Mr. Gaddis makes various other objections. (See Docs. 21 , 22 ). The court has reviewed those objections and OVERRULES them without further discussion. The court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court WILL DISMISS Mr. Gaddis' § 2241 petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 4/10/2020. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gaddis v. Kilgore Doc. 23 FILED 2020 Apr-10 AM 09:17 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS GADDIS, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF JIMMY KILGORE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01872-ACA-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 4, 2020, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court dismiss Petitioner Thomas Gaddis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. (Doc. 20). Mr. Gaddis objected to the report and recommendation on various grounds. (Docs. 21, 22). The court OVERRULES his objections. Mr. Gaddis’ primary objection is that citizens of the United States should not be required to exhaust available state remedies to proceed under § 2241 because, in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), the Supreme Court found that § 2241 gave federal district courts jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of detention by Guantanamo Bay detainees. Id. at 483. (Doc. 22 at 2, 4–6). But the Court’s decision in Rasul did not address the exhaustion requirement. See generally Rasul, 542 U.S. 466. And this court is bound by the Eleventh Circuit’s longstanding Dockets.Justia.com precedent that § 2241 petitioners must exhaust their remedies in state court before proceeding under § 2241. See Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the court OVERRULES this objection. Mr. Gaddis also objects to the timing of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 22 at 14). He points out that on February 20, 2020, the magistrate judge gave him twenty days to respond with any evidence or arguments he wished to present in support of his petition, but the judge issued the report and recommendation thirteen days later, before the time for him to respond had expired. (Id.). However, Mr. Gaddis filed a response on February 28, 2020, within the time allowed. (Doc. 19). Accordingly, the court OVERRULES this objection. Mr. Gaddis makes various other objections. (See Docs. 21, 22). The court has reviewed those objections and OVERRULES them without further discussion. The court ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court WILL DISMISS Mr. Gaddis’ § 2241 petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE and ORDERED this April 10, 2020. _________________________________ ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
