TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jackie Browning v. R.L. Mathews, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution

Browning v. R.L. Mathews,, Fed. Corr. Inst., 810 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 7, 1986
Docket
No. 85-6117
Citations
810 F.2d 1991986 WL 2175331986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33372
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

810 F.2d 199

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Jackie BROWNING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.L. MATHEWS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 85-6117.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1986.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge; MARTIN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER 1

This pro se federal prisoner appeals from a district court judgment adopting the Magistrate's report and recommendation to dismiss his habeas corpus action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction concluding that petitioner's suit attacking the imposition of his sentence should be asserted in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court rather than in the court having jurisdiction over his custodian.

2

Upon review of the cause, this Court concludes that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's action for the reasons stated by it. Petitioner sought to challenge his confinement as illegal by asserting claims premised upon events which transpired prior to his sentencing. He, therefore, must assert these claims in a § 2255 motion to vacate filed in the district court which imposed his sentence. In this case, that court is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and not the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky where he did file the instant suit. See Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766, 770 (6th Cir.1979); Wright v. United States Board of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77 (6th Cir.1977); Napoles v. United States, 536 F.2d 722, 726 (7th Cir.1976) (per curiam ).

3

For these reasons, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary in this appeal. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court's judgment is, accordingly, affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2022: 120222026peak 2022 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ferguson v. United StatesNo. 2:18-cv-00220 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2022)

Most recent

  1. Ferguson v. United StatesNo. 2:18-cv-00220 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2022)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole & United States, 557 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1977) 133
Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1979) 131
Napoles v. United States, 536 F.2d 722 (7th Cir. 1976) 13
Brumbaugh v. Celeste, 810 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1986) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list