Maxberry v. Warden, FCI Yazoo City Low II, Yazoo City, Mississippi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SIDNEY KISAAN MAXBERRY, 	)
BOP Reg. # 22861-032, 	)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-00059-TFM-N
)
WARDEN, FCI YAZOO CITY 	)
LOW II, 	)
YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI,1 	)
Respondent. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Sidney Kisaan Maxberry, a federal inmate proceeding without the
assistance of counsel (pro se), initiated this action by filing a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 dated February 5, 2025 (Doc# 1). Maxberry,
who is currently serving a term of imprisonment under a sentence handed down by
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, claims in the petition
that he is challenging the “[a]pplicatoin [sic] and processing of SCA, FSA time credit
RRC/HC Placement Date[,]” and requests that the Court “order the Yazoo City
Administration and F.B.O.P. to properly calculate and apply all of [his] Earned
Time Credits, and put [him] in for immediate RRC/HC Placement or grant [him]
immediate release.” (Id., PageID.2, 7).
1 “Since the proper party respondent to a § 2241 habeas corpus petition is the
custodian of the prisoner,” Walther v. Bauknecht, 155 F. App'x 463, 464 (11th Cir.
2005) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 1130, 35 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1973)), the warden of
the 	facility 	where 	the 	petitioner 	is 	currently 	incarcerated 	the 	proper 	party
respondent in the present petition.
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

“[C]hallenges to the execution of a [federal] sentence, rather than the validity
of the sentence itself, are properly brought under [28 U.S.C.] § 2241[,]” rather than
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th
Cir. 2008). A challenge to the calculation of time credit by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, such as the present petition, is a challenge to the execution of a sentence,
and is thus properly brought under § 2241. See Bishop v. Reno, 210 F.3d 1295, 1304
n.14 	(11th 	Cir. 	2000) 	(“Since 	the 	administration 	of 	service 	credits, 	including
calculation, awarding, and withholding, is done by the BOP under 18 U.S.C. § 3624,
this process involves the execution rather than the imposition of sentence; thus, this
function of the BOP is a matter for habeas corpus review in district court.”);
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1092–93 (11th
Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“A prisoner sentenced by a federal court…may file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the execution of his sentence, such as the
deprivation 	of 	good-time 	credits 	or 	parole 	determinations.”); 	United 	States 	v.
Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A claim for credit for time served is
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
(citing United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam)).
The 	assigned 	District 	Judge 	has 	referred 	Maxberry’s 	motion 	to 	the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action. See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b);
(Doc# 	2 	& 	2/12/2025 	electronic 	reference 	notation). 	Under 	S.D. 	Ala. 	GenLR
72(a)(2)(R), the undersigned is authorized to require responses, issue orders to show
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

cause and any other orders necessary to develop a complete record, and to prepare a
report and recommendation to the District Judge as to appropriate disposition of
the motion, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 8(b) and 10 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.2 Upon
initial review of Maxberry’s petition, the undersigned finds that it plainly appears
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over it, but that a transfer of the petition to a
court with jurisdiction over it is warranted.
I. 	Analysis
Unlike a motion to alter, amend, or vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
which must be filed with “the court which imposed the sentence[,]” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(a), a federal defendant must file a § 2241 petition “in the district in which the
petitioner is incarcerated.” United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 n.3 (11th Cir.
1984). Accord Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991)
(“Section 2241 petitions may be brought only in the district court for the district in
which the inmate is incarcerated.”). Any other district court would lack jurisdiction
to decide the § 2241 petition. See Fernandez, 941 F.2d at 1495 (“Fernandez is
confined 	at 	FMC–Rochester 	in 	Minnesota. 	Consequently, 	even 	if 	we 	were 	to
construe Fernandez’s claim as a section 2241 motion, the district court for the
Southern District of Florida would not have jurisdiction. Thus, the motion was
2 See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas
corpus petition not [brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254].”); S.D. Ala. CivLR 9(b) (“The
Court may apply any of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts to applications for release from custody under 28 U.S.C. §
2241.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

properly denied.”); Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985) (per
curiam) (“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. 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.” (citation omitted)).
Maxberry currently is,3 and was at the time he filed the present § 2241
petition, incarcerated at a federal prison in Yazoo City, Yazoo County, Mississippi,
which 	is 	located 	within 	the 	Northern 	Division 	of 	the 	Southern 	District 	of
Mississippi. See 28 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Maxberry’s petition, and he must instead seek relief under § 2241 with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, “[w]henever a civil action is filed in a court…and
that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the
interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court…in which
the 	action…could 	have 	been 	brought 	at 	the 	time 	it 	was 	filed…, 	and 	the
action…shall proceed as if it had been filed in…the court to which it is transferred
on the date upon which it was actually filed in…for the court from which it is
transferred.” Upon due consideration, the undersigned finds that the interests of
3 	See 	Federal 	Bureau 	of 	Prisons’s 	online 	“Find 	an 	inmate” 	application,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited June 4, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

justice warrant transferring Maxberry’s § 2241 petition (Doc# 1) from this Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under § 1631.
Maxberry has attached certain exhibits to his petition that he might have difficulty
obtaining 	new 	copies 	of 	for 	a 	petition 	in 	the 	correct 	district 	court, 	and 	the
calculation of time credit Maxberry claims he is owed may be of a time-sensitive
nature.
Maxberry has also recently filed an incomplete, unsigned “Application to
Proceed 	in 	District 	Court 	Without 	Prepaying 	Fees 	or 	Costs” 	(Doc# 	3). 	The
undersigned finds that said application should be transferred along with the § 2241
petition so that the transferee court may take any appropriate action on it that it
deems necessary once transfer is accomplished.
II. 	Conclusion & Recommendations
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is RECOMMENDED that
Maxberry’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 dated
February 5, 2025 (Doc# 1), along with his pending “Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs” (Doc# 3), be TRANSFERRED to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under 28 U.S.C. §
1631.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything
in it must, within 14 days of the date of service of this document, file specific
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 8(b)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts;
S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-
1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the
time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the
absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain
error if necessary in the interests of justice.” In order 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.
DONE this the 4th day of June 2025.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00059-TFM-N Doc# 4 Filed 06/04/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>