Muhammad v. Paul
- David Doty
- 0:19-cv-00966
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Muhammad v. Paul, Judge Doty dismissed Muhammad’s petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.
Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad’s § 2241 petition was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
What happened
Muhammad v. Paul concerns Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad’s petition seeking relief under a federal law that allows certain prisoners to challenge custody. He argued that the sentencing court improperly considered his since-vacated 1974 conviction when setting his sentence.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying Muhammad’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. Muhammad objected, but the court found that the record did not support his argument and that he had not shown that the ordinary sentence-challenge procedure was inadequate for him.
Judge Doty adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. Paul · No. 0:19-cv-00966
- David Doty
- July 31, 2019
Background
Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad filed a petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that the sentencing court improperly considered his since-vacated 1974 conviction when fashioning his sentence in the underlying criminal case. Muhammad also filed an application to proceed without paying filing fees.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and that the application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied as moot. Muhammad objected to that recommendation.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Doty reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, as required when a party objects. The court found the recommendation well-reasoned and correct and concluded that Muhammad’s objections lacked merit. The court stated that the record showed the sentencing court had not improperly considered the since-vacated conviction.
The court also held that Muhammad had not shown that he was entitled to relief under § 2241 because he could not establish that the procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided an inadequate remedy. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.