Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Winston v. United States Attorney General

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

April 10, 2014

MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.

By Memorandum Opinion and Final Order entered August 1, 2013, the Court dismissed Monte DeCarlos Winston's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241[1] for abuse of the writ. Winston v. U.S. Att'y. Gen., No. 3:12CV172, 2013 WL 3967292, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2013). Winston has abused the writ by filing at least three 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petitions challenging the execution or calculation of his federal and state sentences. See id. Because of Winston's history of abusive filings, the Court placed certain prefiling restrictions on any new action challenging the calculation or execution of his sentence. Id . Specifically, the Court directed:

7. From this point forward, before the Court will review any new action challenging the calculation or execution of his sentence, Winston must do the following:
a. Provide a brief summary of why the ends of justice warrant consideration of his submission and attach the summary to the front of any filing; and,
b. Certify that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court and set forth why each claim could not have been raised in one of his previous actions.

Winston's failure to comply with the above directives will result in summary dismissal of the new action.

Id.

Winston has filed a new 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Winston's instant § 2241 petition is yet another attempt to challenge the Bureau of Prison's ("BOP") execution of his sentence recast as a challenge to "the validity of the ad prosequendum writ" to gain custody of Winston. (§ 2241 Pet. 7-9.) Winston "want[s] the court to determine whether the ad prosequendum writ used to secure Petitioner's custody was valid, or not valid." (Id. at 9.)

The Court views the arguments raised in Winston's current § 2241 Petition as yet another attempt to challenge to the execution of his sentence. Winston has failed to comply with the certification requirements outlined in the Court's August 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Winston's § 2241 Petition will be denied and the action will be dismissed.

Winston also filed a Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 2). Winston requests a change of venue and explains that "[a] direct conflict of interest arises, because a number of court officers out of this district court have a direct interest in this writ issue not being reviewed on the merits." (Mot. Change Venue 1.) Winston has not established that a change of venue is appropriate, and his Motion for Change of Venue (ECF No. 2) will be denied. A certificate of appealability will be denied.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Winston.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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