United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
prisoner Wesley Duffield seeks a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). United States District
Judge Scott L. Palk has referred this matter to the
undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Court
should summarily DISMISS the petition
Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to
"summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a
responsive pleading," Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.
644, 656 (2005), "[i]f it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court." See
R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PETITIONER'S CLAIMS
Cherokee County District Court convicted Mr. Duffield for
first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment,
which he is currently serving at the Joseph Harp Correctional
Center. (ECF No. 1:1; 1-1). In the Petition, Mr. Duffield
raises three grounds for relief, all of which attack the
legality of his underlying criminal conviction and current
Ground One, Petitioner alleges that "state courts lack
jurisdiction," rendering his current detention illegal,
and requiring his release. (ECF No. 1:7). An attachment to
the Petition suggests that Ground One is based on
Petitioner's belief that the State of Oklahoma lacked
jurisdiction over his criminal conviction, because his crime
was committed inside an Indian reservation. See ECF
Nos. 1:7 & 1-1; Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896
(10th Cir. 2017), cert granted, ___ S.Ct.____, 2018
WL 747674 (May 21, 2018).
Ground Two, Petitioner claims that his current detention is
in violation of "clearly established federal law,
constitution and treaty and laws of 1977" and he has
suffered "a denial of due process and equal protection
constitutional rights." (ECF No. 1:7). In support of
this claim, he states that Okla[homa] state Courts lacked
jurisdiction in 1977, and lost it since." (ECF
Ground Three, Petitioner alleges his current detention is in
violation of "the United Nations Resolutions, and
International Law, Requiring Release." (ECF No. 1:7). In
support, Mr. Duffield alleges that his sentence has been
voided by "ex-post-facto changes in policy, and
law[.]" (ECF No. 1:7).
under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a
sentence, in contrast to § 2254 habeas . . .
proceedings, which are used to collaterally attack the
validity of a conviction and sentence." Mclntosh v.
U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir.
1997) (citations omitted)). See Prost v. Anderson,
636 F.3d 578, 581 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that it is
"the nature of a prisoner's confinement,
not the fact of his confinement" that is the
gravamen of a Section 2241 petition or challenge), (emphasis
Mr. Duffield alleges no facts to show that he is challenging
the execution of his sentence or the nature of his
confinement. He does not, for instance, seek to challenge
"certain matters that occur at prison, such as
deprivation of good-time credits and other prison
disciplinary matters . . . affecting the fact or
duration" of his custody. Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d
1162, 1165 n.2 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation omitted).
all of Petitioner's Grounds for relief "attempt a
frontal assault on his conviction." Prost, 636
F.3d at 581. Petitioner apparently believes ...