Hajduk v. U.S., 84-8811
| Decision Date | 01 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-8811,84-8811 |
| Citation | 764 F.2d 795 |
| Parties | Joseph J. HAJDUK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
J. Michael Faulkner, Augusta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before VANCE, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
I. FACTS
In 1978, Hajduk entered a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 (second degree murder). He was sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4205(b)(2), thus, making him immediately eligible for parole at such time as the parole commission, within its discretion, should determine that it was warranted. Since that time, the defendant has appeared before the parole commission on three occasions. His current presumptive parole date is set as September 4, 1990.
In 1983, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 to correct, vacate, or set aside his sentence. The substance of petitioner's motion was that since the time of his original incarceration the parole guidelines had been increased. The guidelines in 1978 called for 40 months in prison but since that time they have been increased to 76-84 months. Hajduk alleges that the amendment of the guidelines violates the ex post facto clause and furthermore that such a long period of incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The government filed its response and the case was referred to a United States Magistrate. The magistrate found that the motion was meritless. The district court, adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation, entered an order denying relief and dismissing the petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal raising the issue of whether retrospective application of the parole guidelines violates the ex post facto clause.
II. THE LEGAL ISSUE IN CONTEXT
A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 179, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2237, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979); see also United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 (11th Cir.1984). Hajduk's ex post facto argument is nothing more than a challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commission's actions, not the lawfulness of the sentence imposed by the court. Such an action must be brought as a petition for writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terrell v. U.S.
...Commission's discretionary decision in setting petitioner's term of parole should have been brought under § 2241); Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that "challenge to the lawfulness of the [federal] parole commission's actions" in retroactively applying pa......
-
Samak v. Warden
...a motion to vacate his sentence is “inadequate or ineffective” to test that aspect of his detention. See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985). Or, for example, a military prisoner whose sentencing court no longer exists must have a forum for his one opportunity ......
-
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc.
...claim about the execution of his sentence because that claim is not cognizable under section 2255(a). See, e.g. , Hajduk v. United States , 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1985). The motion to vacate is "of such a nature" that it will "not ... produce ... the intended [ ] effect," Ineffective ......
-
Brown v. United States
...open a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as a separate remedy for federal prisoners. See, e.g., Hajduk v. United States, 764 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (“A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 225......