United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
RAYMOND L. ROGERS PETITIONER
DEWAYNE HENDRIX Warden, FCI-Forrest City RESPONDENT
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. You may file written
objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do
so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this Recommendation. The failure to timely
file objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact.
before the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus by Petitioner, Raymond L. Rogers
(“Rogers”), who is currently incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas.
Doc. 1. Rogers challenges a jury conviction and
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas (Wichita Division) in United States v.
Rogers, 6:13-cv-1448-JTM (“Rogers
Rogers's second effort, in this district, to bring a
§ 2241 habeas Petition challenging his federal
conviction in Rogers I. On November 13, 2017, Rogers
filed a § 2241 habeas Petition challenging his federal
conviction. Rogers v. Beasley, Eastern District of
Arkansas No. 2:17-cv-00198-DPM-JTR (“Rogers
II”). On December 22, 2017, United States District
Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., on de novo review, adopted
the undersigned's Recommended Disposition, and dismissed
Rogers's § 2241 petition, without prejudice, for
lack of jurisdiction. Rogers II (see Doc. 3 and
11). Rogers appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of
25, 2018, the Eighth Circuit entered a Judgment affirming the
district court's dismissal of Rogers's § 2241
petition. Rogers v. Beasley, 8th Cir. No. 18-1056.
then filed a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court. On October 1, 2018, the Supreme Court
dismissed Rogers's petition, finding that Rogers had
“repeatedly abused this Court's process” and
directed the Clerk “not to accept any further petition
in noncriminal matters” from Rogers unless he paid the
filing fee and submitted a petition in compliance with Rule
33.1. Rogers v. Beasley, United States Supreme Court
No. 17-9446, 2018 WL 3055833 (Oct. 1, 2018).
October 12, 2018, Rogers initiated this § 2241 action.
Once again, he contends that because he was convicted of
charges in an original indictment, after the Government
dismissed a superseding indictment, his federal conviction
should be declared void and he should be
“discharged' from his alleged involuntary
reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that this
§ 2241 Petition be dismissed, without prejudice. The
Court also recommends that Raymond Rogers be placed on the
Restricted Filers list and that no further filings
challenging his federal conviction in Rogers I be
accepted for filing.
district court is not required to entertain a second habeas
application inquiring into the detention of a federal
prisoner if the legality of such detention has been
determined in an earlier federal habeas action. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(a). This provision has been construed as
barring a federal prisoner from raising claims in a §
2241 habeas petition that were adjudicated, or could have
been adjudicated, in a previous § 2241 action.
Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262, 1269-70, 1272 (10th
Cir. 2010) (second § 2241 petition was subject to
dismissal under § 2244(a) as successive and abusive),
pet. for cert. filed, No. 10-7804 (U.S. Oct. 22, 2010);
Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348,
1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (§ 2241 petition properly
dismissed where claims had been adjudicated in prior §
2241 action); Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 255 (3d
Cir. 2008) (holding that, under § 2244(a) and the
abuse-of-the-writ doctrine, § 2241 petitioner could not
raise issues that “either had been, or could have been,
decided in his previous habeas action”).
current § 2241 Petition challenges the same federal
conviction in Rogers I that he challenged in
Rogers II. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), this
Court is not required to entertain Rogers's second effort
to use § 2241 to challenge his conviction in Rogers
I, after it determined, in Rogers II, that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to do so. Thus,
Rogers's § 2241 habeas Petition is an abuse of the
writ, which warrants placing him on the Restricted Filers
THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition, Doc. 1, be
DENIED, and the case be DISMISSED, without prejudice.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT Rogers be placed on the Restricted
Filers list and that no further filings challenging his