Glenewinkel v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAY E. GLENEWINKEL, §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-00649-N (BT)
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
Respondent §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se litigant Jay E. Glenewinkel, a former federal prisoner serving a
lifetime term of supervised release, filed a document entitled “Post Incarceration
Appeal Vindictive Prosecution Based on Personal Bias and Vendetta Toward
Defendant Glenewinkel” in which he seeks to invalidate his federal conviction and
sentence. See Filing (ECF No. 3). For the following reasons, the Court should
construe Glenewinkel’s Filing (ECF. No. 3) as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 and dismiss the motion and this case without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
Background
In 2011, Glenewinkel was convicted of receipt of child pornography in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division. See United States v. Jay Glenewinkel, 5:10-cr-216-XR-1 (Crim. Doc. 55)
(Judgment); see also Glenewinkel v. United States, 2015 WL 13731255, at *1 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 23, 2015), rec. accepted 2015 WL 8516751, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2015)
(order denying Glenewinkel’s first motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255), aff’d,
Case 3:26-cv-00649-N-BT Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
United States v. Glenewinkel, 2017 WL 447316 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2017). He was
sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment and lifetime supervised release. See id.
Glenewinkel was released from BOP custody in May 2025 and is now on supervised
release. Filing at 2.
On February 24, 2026, Glenewinkel filed a document entitled “Post
Incarceration Appeal Vindictive Prosecution Based on Personal Bias and Vendetta
Toward Defendant Glenewinkel.” See Filing. He generally alleges that new
evidence from “You Tube news video resources” and the Epstein files shows that a
federal prosecutor in his criminal case, Tracy Lynn Thompson, was biased and had
a “personal vendetta” against him. Id. at 1-3. He argues that Thompson’s alleged
bias tainted his criminal proceedings and violated his right to due process under
the “4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Id. at 1. He
seeks “vindication of his conviction” and a stay of his supervised release and
“suspension of any subsequent programming” pending the disposition of his
“appeal.” Id. at 4.
Legal Standards and Analysis
The proper vehicle for a “prisoner in custody under sentence of a court
established by Act of Congress” to collaterally challenge a criminal conviction or
sentence is a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.
2001) (per curiam); see also Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th
Cir. 1990).
Case 3:26-cv-00649-N-BT Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
Here, Glenewinkel collaterally attacks his conviction and sentence based on
allegedly new evidence showing a prosecutor’s bias and “vendetta” against him.
See generally Filing. And Glenewinkel, despite release from incarceration, remains
“in custody” for purposes of § 2255 because he is serving a lifetime term of
supervised release. See United States v. Ramirez, 703 F. Supp. 3d 756, 762 (E.D.
La. 2023) (“custody” under § 2255 is construed to include supervised release); see
also Acosta v. United States, 2013 WL 6172123, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (“Under the
case law of this and other circuits the term ‘in custody’ includes both periods of
incarceration and periods of supervised release or parole.”) (citing Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 454 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the Court should construe
Glenewinkel’s Filing as a § 2255 motion to vacate sentence. See United States v.
Cardenas, 13 F. 4th 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted) (“When reviewing
a pro se litigant’s filings, ‘[i]t is the substance of the relief sought by…[the]
pleading, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it, that determines the
true nature and operative effect of [the] habeas filing.”).1
But because the proper place to file a § 2255 motion is the district and
division where the movant was sentenced, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), Glenewinkel’s
1 This is Glenewinkel’s second § 2255 motion, so Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.
375 (2003) is inapplicable. See id. at 383 (holding that when a court
recharacterizes a pro se filing as a first § 2255 motion, it must warn the litigant
that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be
subject to the restrictions on “second or successive” motions, and provide the
litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains
all the § 2255 claims he believes he has).
Case 3:26-cv-00649-N-BT Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
Filing—properly construed as a § 2255 motion—should have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antoinio
Division. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider Glenewinkel’s Filing,
and this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680,
683 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to hear
a § 2255 motion attacking a sentence); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129,
1132 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to
address a § 2255 motion); see also Nabaya v. United States, 2021 WL 3744208, at
*1-2 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2021) (Rutherford, J.), rec. accepted 2021 WL 3742613
(N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2021) (dismissing § 2255 motion filed in the wrong district for
lack of jurisdiction).
Recommendation
The Court lacks jurisdiction over Glenewinkel’s Filing (ECF No. 3)—
properly construed as a § 2255 motion to vacate sentence—and should dismiss this
case without prejudice.
SO RECOMMENDED.
March 12, 2026.
______________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00649-N-BT Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific, an
objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection
that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate
judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved
party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge
that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error.
See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00649-N-BT Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>