Clemons v. Keffer, No. 4:2010cv00627 - Document 14 (N.D. Tex. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS adopting 9 Findings and Recommendations... Clemonss petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 6/8/2011) (krg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clemons v. Keffer Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EDDIE MAE CLEMONS, Petitioner, VS. JOE KEFFER, Warden, FMC-Carswell, Respondent. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:10-CV-627-Y ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (With special instructions to the clerk of court) In this action brought by petitioner Eddie Mae Clemons under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause: 1. The pleadings and record; 2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on January 5, 2011; and 3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on January 12, 2011. The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss must be granted, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED, as modified.1 1 As determined by the magistrate judge, because Clemons was not convicted of any offenses involving the “honest services” doctrine, the decision of the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010) has no relevance and is not applicable. The magistrate judge also determined that the Skilling decision is not a retroactively-applicable decision for purposes of the first element in the test for determining whether a § 2241 petition may be filed consistent with the “savings clause” of § 2255. The respondent has now acknowledged to this Court that the Skilling decision is retroactive for such purposes. See Edelman v. Keffer, No.4:10-CV-531-Y (April 26, 2011, Response.) As the Skilling case is not applicable to Clemons’s conviction, that Skilling is Dockets.Justia.com Respondent Keffer’s motion to dismiss (doc. 5) is GRANTED. Eddie Mae Clemons’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SIGNED June 8, 2011. ____________________________ TERRY R. MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE retroactive does not change the resolution of Clemons’s § 2241 petition. 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.
