United States District Court, D. Nebraska
LARRY D. GLADFELTER, Petitioner,
MARK FOXALL, Dr.; Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.
initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
I will dismiss this 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Larry D. Gladfelter filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (filing no.
1) on September 13, 2018, when he was confined at the
Douglas County Correctional Center and awaiting disposition
on a second amended petition for an offender under
supervision in this court in case number 8:97-cr-00129.
(See Filing No. 113, No. 8:97-cr-00129.) According
to the court's records, a final hearing regarding
revocation of Gladfelter's supervised release was held on
September 25, 2018, before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
wherein Gladfelter admitted to one of the allegations of the
second amended petition for an offender under supervision and
was sentenced to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons for a term of 12 months and 1 day. (TEXT
MINUTE ENTRY No. 117 and Filing No. 119, No.
8:97-cr-00129.) To date, Gladfelter has not filed any motion
or other type of challenge in case number 8:97-cr-00129
regarding the revocation of his supervised release. Liberally
construed, condensed, and summarized, Gladfelter alleges this
court in case number 8:97-cr-00129 lacked jurisdiction over
the revocation proceedings and seeks to be released from
Gladfelter admitted guilt to violating a condition of his
supervised release and judgment was entered revoking his
supervised release, his § 2241 claim is moot to the
extent he sought to challenge his pre-revocation detention.
extent Gladfelter states a cognizable jurisdictional claim,
such claim is not properly raised in a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. A federal prisoner challenging the
legality of his sentence must raise his claims in a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion, while a federal prisoner attacking the
execution of a sentence should raise his claims in a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the jurisdiction of
incarceration. Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 649
(8th Cir. 2009); see United States v. Hutchings, 835
F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that a federal prisoner
challenging the manner, location, or conditions of
sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241); Youngman v.
United States, 3:11-cv-03009, 2011 WL 2312092, *2-3
(D.S.D. June 10, 2011) (dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition because it was an attack on the validity of a
sentence that should have been made under 28 U.S.C. §
2255). Gladfelter's claim that this court lacked
jurisdiction over his revocation proceedings attacks the
validity and legality of the court's judgment and
sentence upon revocation and must be raised in a motion
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
28 U.S.C. § 2253, which requires the district court to
consider whether to issue a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) on appeal, applies to appeals from the
denial or dismissal of habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, habeas petitions by state prisoners under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, and motions to vacate sentence by federal
prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, a federal
prisoner appealing the denial or dismissal of a § 2241
petition is not required to obtain a COA. Langella v.
Anderson, 612 F.3d 938, 939 n.2 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing
Murphy v. United States, 199 F.3d 599, 601 n.2 (2d
Cir. 1999)). See also Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d
862, 866-67 (10th Cir. 2000) (A COA is required to appeal
“the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which
the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a
State court” or “the final order in a proceeding
under section 2255;” thus, a state prisoner needs a COA
to appeal a § 2241 or § 2254 judgment, but a
federal prisoner needs a COA only for a § 2255 appeal,
not § 2241.). Because Gladfelter challenged only his
detention by federal authorities and is presently confined in
federal custody, the court determines that Gladfelter is
exempt from the COA requirement.
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's habeas petition (filing no. 1)
is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be
entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
2. The clerk of the court is directed to send a copy of this
Memorandum and Order and the separate judgment to Petitioner
at the following address: FCI Pekin, Federal Correctional
Institution, P.O. Box 5000, Pekin, IL 61555.
 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
allows me to apply Rule 4 of those rules to a section 2241
petition. See also28 U.S.C. § 2243.
 A search conducted through the Federal
Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator website indicates that
Gladfelter is currently confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Pekin, Illinois.