Joseph J. Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Joseph J. Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (ca11, 2014-09-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 , 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1835 (1973) (stating that prisoners’ suits challenging good-time credits “fell squarely within th[e] traditional scope of habeas corpus”); Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) (ruling that a prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging administrative sanctions imposed on him for possession of narcotics); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[A] § 2241 action challenging prison disciplinary proceedings, such as the deprivation of …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 , 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1835 (1973) (stating that prisoners’ suits challenging good-time credits “fell squarely within th[e] traditional scope of habeas corpus”); Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) (ruling that a prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging administrative sanctions imposed on him for possession of narcotics); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[A] § 2241 action challenging prison disciplinary proceedings, such as the deprivation of …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jamal Abu Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium (8×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 , 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1835 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (stating that prisoners’ suits challenging good-time credits “fell squarely within th[e] traditional scope of habeas corpus”); Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir.2001) (ruling that a prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging administrative sanctions imposed on him for possession of narcotics); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.1997) (“[A] § 2241 action challenging prison disciplinary proceedings, such as the d…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. United States Bureau of Prisons
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985); Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sammy Terrell v. United States
6th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Construing [the savings clause], courts have uniformly held that claims asserted by federal prisoners that seek to challenge their convictions or imposition of their sentence shall be filed in the [jurisdiction of the] sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and that claims seeking to challenge the execution or manner in which the sentence is served shall be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .”9 Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted); see also Doganiere v. United St…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terrell v. United States
6th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Construing [the savings clause], courts have uniformly held that claims asserted by federal prisoners that seek to challenge their convictions or imposition of their sentence shall be filed in the [jurisdiction of the] sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and that claims seeking to challenge the execution or manner in which the sentence is served shall be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .” 9 Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted); see also Doganiere v. United St…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (ordering a jurisdictional dismissal of a § 2255 motion challenging Parole Commission decision).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jose Manuel Saldana
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cowles v. Brooks
E.D. Va. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Snow, 748 F.2d 928, 933-34 (4th Cir.1984); Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985); Jacobson v. United States, 542 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir.1976); Youngworth v. United States Parole Comm’n, 728 F.Supp. 384, 388 (W.D.N.C.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. USA
D.N.H. · 1996 · confidence medium
United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985) (challenge to actions of Parole Commission are properly brought pursuant to § 2241; such challenges may not be brought pursuant to § 2255.); Thompson v .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlos Cabrera v. United States
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 187 , 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2241 , 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979) (actions of Parole Commission, taken after imposition of a valid sentence, do not alter legitimacy of ’judgment and do not supply basis to attack sentence under § 2255); Dioguardi v. United States, 587 F.2d 572, 574-75 (2d Cir.1978) (affirming district court’s dismissal of 2255 motion since Commissioner’s decision to grant or deny parole was not part of sentencing process); see also Martorana v. United States, 873 F.2d 283, 285 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (“Section 2255 is available to challen…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fernando Fernandez v. United States
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schifano (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186 (8th Cir.1987); Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985); see generally United States v. Huss, 520 F.2d 598, 604 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Hutchings
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Id. at 500 ; see also United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 190 , 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2243 , 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979) (actions taken by USPC in connection with prisoner’s sentence which did not affect the validity of the final judgment did not provide a basis for collateral attack on sentence pursuant to § 2255); Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (whether retrospective application of USPC guidelines violates the ex post facto clause not cognizable under § 2255); United States v. Ferri, 686 F.2d 147, 158 (3d Cir. 1982) (claim that USPC’s application of ne…
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985) (a § 2241 habeas petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is incarcerated).
cited Cited "see" John G. Westine v. Willie Scott
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Rondal R. Francis v. R.H. Rison, Warden
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: accord · confidence high
See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1982); accord, Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc. (6×)
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." James Joseph Brown v. United States
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) ("A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James Joseph Brown v. United States
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions 29 Case: 11-15149 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 30 of 57 Habeas corpus proceedings have historically been viewed as civil proceedings.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph J. HAJDUK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
84-8811.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 1, 1985.
764 F.2d 795
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30816
J. Michael Faulkner, Augusta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Vance, Henderson, Clark.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
[*796] PER CURIAM:

I. FACTS

In 1978, Hajduk entered a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (second degree murder). He was sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), thus, making him immediately eligible for parole at such time as the parole commission, within its discretion, should determine that it was warranted. Since that time, the defendant has appeared before the parole commission on three occasions. His current presumptive parole date is set as September 4, 1990.

In 1983, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct, vacate, or set aside his sentence. The substance of petitioner’s motion was that since the time of his original incarceration the parole guidelines had been increased. The guidelines in 1978 called for 40 months in prison but since that time they have been increased to 76-84 months. Hajduk alleges that the amendment of the guidelines violates the ex post facto clause and furthermore that such a long period of incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The government filed its response and the case was referred to a United States Magistrate. The magistrate found that the motion was meritless. The district court, adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation, entered an order denying relief and dismissing the petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal raising the issue of whether retrospective application of the parole guidelines violates the ex post facto clause.

II. THE LEGAL ISSUE IN CONTEXT

A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 179, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2237, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979); see also United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 (11th Cir.1984). Hajduk’s ex post facto argument is nothing more than a challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commission’s actions, not the lawfulness of the sentence imposed by the court. Such an action must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may only be brought in the court having jurisdiction over the petitioner or his place of incarceration. As Hajduk is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Lexington, Kentucky, he is outside the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Georgia for habeas corpus purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d at 621 n. 3; Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527-28 (5th Cir.1978). Hajduk, at his discretion, may bring his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the proper form. However, we determine that jurisdiction was lacking in this case. Therefore, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND the case to the district court that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.