Mannino v. Yates
Mannino v. Yates
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION
GUY C. MANNINO PLAINTIFF Reg #21960-075
v. Case No. 2:22-cv-00216-LPR
JOHN P. YATES, Warden DEFENDANT
ORDER
The Court has received the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin, which recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas corpus petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1 After Judge Ervin submitted her recommendation, and upon Plaintiff’s motion, the Court stayed the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465(2023).2 Plaintiff had hoped that the Jones decision would “expand this [C]ourt’s authority and jurisdiction to hear” his case.3 But no such luck. Plaintiff now concedes that the Jones decision, which came down in June 2023, “affords [the Court] no greater latitude” to hear his case than it had in December 2022, when Judge Ervin issued her recommendation.4 The Court lifted the stay in this case on August 17, 2023, and gave Plaintiff 21 days to object to the RD.5 But no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.
1 Doc. 3. 2 Mot. to Stay (Doc. 6); Order (Doc. 8) 3 Mot. to Stay (Doc. 6). 4 Mot. to Transfer Case (Doc. 9). 5 Order (Doc. 10). Plaintiff makes one last request before dismissal, in the form of a Motion to transfer his case to Fairbanks, Alaska, so that his sentencing court may consider a modification to his sentence.® But the Court does not have the authority to convert Plaintiff's
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition into a motion pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). That is an issue he will have to take up with his sentencing court in the first instance. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the entire record in this case, the Court approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Case (Doc. 9) is DENIED. DATED this 29th day of September 2023.
LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 Mot. to Transfer Case (Doc. 9);
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Reference
- Status
- Unknown