United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
NAPOLEON L. EDWARDS PETITIONER
MARSHALL COUNTY CORRECITONAL FACILITY, et al. RESPONDENTS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden regarding
Napoleon L. Edwards' petition for writ of habeas corpus.
about September 8, 2017, Napoleon L. Edwards filed a
“Brief” in this Court which, although less than
clear, appears to be a challenge two Rule Violation Reports
(“RVRs”) issued to him while a prisoner at the
Marshall County Correctional Facility. Doc. #1. After being
directed to respond, the respondents filed a motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2018. Docs. #7, #12. The motion argues
that Edwards' claims should be dismissed as procedurally
defaulted or for failure to exhaust. Id. at 9-14.
November 19, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M.
Virden issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) which recommends that this action be
treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a
claim. Doc. #14 at 11. Specifically, Judge Virden found that
Edwards' petition did not implicate the jurisdiction of
§ 2241 because it would not impact the fact or duration
of his confinement. Id. at 10. The R&R also
recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted.
Id. at 1.
filed objections to the R&R on or about December 4, 2018.
Doc. #16. The respondents responded to Edwards'
objections on December 20, 2018. Doc. #17.
28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1), “[a] judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report … to which objection is made.”
“[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only
determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v.
Alaniz, 278 F.Supp.3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th
Edwards asserts three independent objections, only one
relates to the R&R's conclusion that this Court lacks
jurisdiction. See generally Doc. #16. This
objection argues that because the Mississippi Supreme Court
rejected the appeal related to Edwards' RVRs, he is
entitled “to proceed with the next higher court which
in this case is the Mississippi Northern District Court
(Oxford Division).” Id. at 6. Edwards'
argument confuses the requirement of exhaustion of state
remedies with the separate rule that a § 2241 petition
falls outside this Court's jurisdiction if the petition
would not impact the fact or duration of the petitioner's
confinement. Henrikson v. Guzik, 249 F.3d 395, 397
n.4 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[B]ecause Henrikson is not
challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, subject
matter jurisdiction is not present under §
2241.”). Because there is no indication the RVRs at
issue here would impact the fact or duration of Edwards'
confinement,  this Court finds Judge Virden properly
concluded that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Edwards' petition. The R&R will be adopted in this
reached this conclusion, the Court declines to “tread
in to the waters of hypothetical jurisdiction” by
considering the R&R's alternative holding that
Edwards' petition fails to state a claim. Johnson v.
United Airlines, Inc., No. 17-c-8858, 2019 WL 1239723,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see Staggs v. U.S. ex rel. Dep't of
Health & Human Servs., 425 F.3d 881, 884 n.2
(10th Cir. 2005) (declining to consider alternative grounds
for affirmance based on rejection of doctrine of hypothetical
jurisdiction). Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the
R&R's conclusion that Edwards' petition fails to
state a claim and the related recommendation that the motion
to dismiss (which does not seek dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction) be granted.
Report and Recommendation  is ADOPTED in Part and
REJECTED in Part. The R&R is ADOPTED to the
extent it recommends that Edwards' petition be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. The R&R is REJECTED to the
extent it sets forth an alternative holding and to the extent
it recommends that the motion to dismiss  be granted.
Rather, the motion to dismiss  is DENIED as
moot. Edwards' petition is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.