Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Santos Murillo’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that Murillo could seek relief under § 2255 in the Western District of Washington, where he had a pending proceeding and authorization to amend with appointed counsel, and therefore denied transfer as unwarranted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner's § 2241 petition under the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
- Whether the court should transfer the petition and accompanying exhibits to the Western District of Washington rather than dismiss the action.
- Whether the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted after review of Petitioner's objections.
Holdings
- The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner's § 2241 petition because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. His pending, nearly identical § 2255 proceeding and his concern that amendment might be time-barred did not satisfy the savings clause.
- Transfer was not warranted because Petitioner could pursue his claims in the pending § 2255 proceeding before the sentencing court, which had authorized amendment and appointed counsel.
Key quotations
“Resort to § 2241 via the saving clause and filing in the judicial district of imprisonment is permitted only in ‘the unusual circumstances in which it is impossible or impracticable for a prisoner to seek relief from the sentencing court.’” (Discussion)
“The petition, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 petition challenging matters related to the execution and implementation of his sentence, including the effect of his criminal-history score on his custody level. He was transferred from FCI Williamsburg in South Carolina to FCI Greenville in Illinois. Petitioner also had a nearly identical § 2255 proceeding pending before the sentencing court in the Western District of Washington, where he was permitted to amend his motion by July 17, 2026 and was appointed counsel.
Procedural history
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and that the remaining motions be deemed moot. The district court considered Petitioner's objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the remaining motions without prejudice. The court denied transfer because the sentencing court had permitted Petitioner to amend his pending § 2255 motion and had appointed counsel.