Willis v. United State of America
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-00975
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Willis v. United States of America, Judge Magnuson denied the petition and dismissed the case without prejudice because § 2241 was improper.
Robert Charles Willis’s attempt to challenge his federal sentence through a § 2241 petition was denied, and the action was dismissed without prejudice; the United States of America was the opposing party.
What happened
In Willis v. United States of America, Robert Charles Willis asked the court to review his federal sentence through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case without prejudice.
The court agreed that Willis’s claims belonged under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2241. It also rejected his argument that he was actually innocent, explaining that his request for resentencing challenged the legality of his sentence rather than the facts of his guilt.
Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Willis’s petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Willis v. United State of America · No. 0:20-cv-00975
- Paul Magnuson
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Robert Charles Willis filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and the action be dismissed without prejudice. The recommendation concluded that Willis’s limited petition raised claims that properly belonged under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the usual procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Willis objected. Willis argued that he should have received permission to appeal earlier § 2255 challenges involving felony convictions used as sentencing predicates under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court stated that requests for a certificate of appealability or permission to file a second or successive § 2255 claim must be directed to the sentencing court and the appropriate appellate court.
Willis also argued that he was actually innocent. The court concluded that his own arguments undermined that claim because he sought resentencing rather than asserting factual innocence. Because Willis did not show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the court determined that it could not consider his § 2241 petition.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Willis’s petition under § 2241 and dismissed the action without prejudice. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.