Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davenport v. Nickrenz

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

November 4, 2013

Ronald James Davenport, Petitioner,
v.
C. Nickrenz, Warden, Respondent.

Ronald James Davenport, Duluth, Minnesota 55814, pro se Petitioner.

Gregory G. Brooker, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of Petitioner's Objections [Doc. No. 4] to United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan's September 3, 2013, Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 3]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's "Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus" [Doc. No. 1] be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Sept. 3, 2013, Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 3].) For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Petitioner's objections and adopts the R&R in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

The R&R documents the factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court incorporates it here by reference. Briefly stated, Mr. Davenport is confined at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, pursuant to a conviction and sentencing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, for filing false liens in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521 (counts 1-4). He is serving a 41-month prison sentence, imposed by the Eastern District of Washington. After Petitioner was sentenced, he filed a direct appeal. The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected all of the claims in Petitioner's appeal, and it affirmed his conviction and sentence on April 15, 2013. United States v. Davenport, 515 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished). Petitioner then filed a post-conviction motion in the trial court, seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The trial court denied Petitioner's § 2255 motion, and it did not grant him a Certificate of Appealability. United States v. Davenport, No. 2:10-cr-0061-KI, 2013 WL 3089058 (E.D. Wash. June 18, 2013).

On April 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence in his federal criminal case in the Eastern District of Washington. (Davenport v. Nickrenz, No. 13-cv-987 (SRN/AJB) [Doc. No. 1].) On May 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ( Id. [Doc. No. 3].) Petitioner objected to the R&R on May 7, 2013, but then dismissed the case voluntarily on May 29, 2013. ( Id. [Doc. Nos. 4, 5].)

In the instant case, Petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence in the Eastern District of Washington again, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his federal criminal case. Petitioner essentially raises the same lack-of-jurisdiction argument here as he did in the previous § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Washington and the § 2241 petition in the District of Minnesota.

On September 3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court summarily dismiss Petitioner's case for lack of jurisdiction because the claims cannot be addressed on the merits. (Sept. 3, 2013, Report and Recommendation at 3 [Doc. No. 3].) On September 19, 2013, Petitioner objected to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Pet'r's Resp. to Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4].) On October 2, 2013, the Government responded to Petitioner's objections. (Resp. of United States to Pet'r's Objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5].)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A party "may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.