Hodson v. United States

Background

David Joseph Hodson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure for challenging certain aspects of federal custody. The order addressed Ground Four of his second amended motion and petition. In that ground, Hodson raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim and sought to withdraw his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and set aside the related verdict.

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The recommendation concluded that, although Hodson said he was not challenging his earlier insanity defense, the relief he requested would effectively do so. The recommendation relied on the rule that a petitioner may not use a Section 2241 petition to collaterally attack a successful insanity defense.

Hodson’s Objections

Hodson objected to the recommendation. He argued that relief under Section 2241 was appropriate because he had no alternative way to raise his ineffective-assistance claim. He also argued that the claim did not conflict with the reasoning of Archuleta v. Hedrick, which addressed limits on using Section 2241 to challenge an insanity defense.

The court found that Hodson cited no authority supporting his interpretation. It also stated that, even if his claim were not barred under Section 2241, he was not entitled to habeas relief because he was in custody under commitment orders entered under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e) and (g).

Ruling

After conducting the required review of the objections, Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court ordered that Ground Four be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It separately ordered that the petition be dismissed and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.