Phillips v. Ivey, 4:24-cv-00395

Matthew Sherman Phillips filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Northern District of Alabama, initially invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging aspects of his custody related to his 2008 state sentence.
The Magistrate Judge treated the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and recommended it be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition, lacking jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Phillips moved for his objections to be accepted late due to delayed receipt of the Magistrate’s report; the district court granted his request and considered the objections.
Phillips argued: (1) the recharacterization from § 2241 to § 2254 was improper without warning, and (2) that § 2254 was inapplicable as he challenged the execution (not the validity) of his sentence.
The Magistrate’s report and the district court rejected both arguments and granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Phillips's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Was the petition properly recharacterized as one under § 2254?	Court must warn petitioner before recharacterizing; Castro applies.	No warning required for successive petitions per Castro.	No warning required for successive petitions.
Does § 2254 apply if challenging sentence execution, not conviction?	§ 2254 governs attacks on conviction, not on execution of sentence.	§ 2254 applies since Phillips is in custody per judgment.	§ 2254 applies; challenge is under its purview.
Jurisdiction over a successive habeas petition under § 2254	District court should have jurisdiction.	Court lacks jurisdiction without appeals court approval.	No jurisdiction over successive habeas petitions.
Motion to convert to § 2241	Petition should be treated under § 2241 due to nature of claims.	Petitioner is a state prisoner in custody per judgment.	Motion to convert to § 2241 denied.

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (court must warn before recharacterizing initial pro se motion as first habeas petition, but not required for successive petitions)
Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrs., 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004) (Castro warning does not apply to successive or recharacterized petitions)
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782 (11th Cir. 2004) (state prisoner in custody per state judgment must proceed under § 2254, even challenging execution)
Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (§ 2254 applies to state prisoners regardless of challenge to execution or validity of sentence)
Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003) (§ 2254 is exclusive remedy for state prisoners, including challenges to execution of sentences)
Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001) (state prisoners must use § 2254 to challenge execution of state sentences)