Nettles v. Garrido

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
CARL G. NETTLES §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-575
F. J. GARRIDO §
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Carl G. Nettles, a prisoner previously confined at the Federal Correctional
Complex in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court.
The magistrate judge recommends denying the petition.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the
Bureau of Prisons accurately calculated Petitioner’s federal sentence. Petitioner now argues that his
federal sentence should have been reduced pursuant to § 5G1.3(c) of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines to grant credit toward his federal sentence for time credited to a related sentence imposed
by a state court. This claim does not challenge the manner in which Petitioner’s sentence is being
Case 1:22-cv-00575-MJT-ZJH Document 28 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

executed or calculated by the Bureau of Prisons. Rather, Petitioner is attacking the legality of the
sentence as imposed, based on the sentencing court’s alleged failure to apply a provision of the
Sentencing Guidelines to reduce Petitioner’s federal sentence.
A challenge to a federal sentence generally must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not in
a § 2241 petition. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). The “savings clause”of
§ 2255 allows a prisoner to use § 2241 as the vehicle for attacking a federal conviction only if it
appears that the remedy by § 2255 motion “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The savings clause allows a petitioner to challenge a federal
conviction or sentence under § 2241 only “in cases where unusual circumstances make it impossible
or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court....” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478
(2023). The Supreme Court identified two examples of circumstances warranting application of the
savings clause: (1) if the sentencing court had been dissolved, and (2) if it is impracticable for the
sentencing court to hear the matter for reasons such as the inability of the petitioner to be present at
a hearing. Id. at 474-75. Petitioner’s claim concerning the application of the Sentencing Guidelines
does not rise to the level of “unusual circumstances” that would allow him to pursue that claim in
a § 2241 petition.
ORDER
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections [Dkt. 21] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
the conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the magistrate judge’s Report and
2
Case 1:22-cv-00575-MJT-ZJH Document 28 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Recommendation [Dkt. 17] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in
accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
3
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 12th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:22-cv-00575-MJT-ZJH Document 28 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>