Hoskins v. Rios

Hoskins v. Rios

Petitioner:	Walter Hoskins, III
Respondent:	Ricardo Rios
Case Number:	1:2012cv01046
Filed:	February 2, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office:	Peoria Office
County:	Tazewell
Presiding Judge:	Michael M. Mihm
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 15, 2013	Filing 15 ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/15/2013. Relief under section 2255 would have been adequate for the ineffective assistance of counsel argument Hoskins now advances. Section 2255 is not inadequate simply because the statute plac es severe restrictions on the filing of second of successive section 2255 motions - otherwise, § 2241 would be an all-too-convenient means of circumventing the second-or-successive restrictions in § 2255(h). Hernandez v. Federal Correctiona l Inst., No. 08-C-499, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52156 (E.D. Wis. June 10, 2008). Hoskins does not claim that the charged conduct is no longer a crime - he abandoned his actual innocence claims is they relate to his armed career criminal enhancement. Ins tead, he challenges the constitutionality of his sentence by bringing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because this challenge is not cognizable in a section 2241 petition and Hoskins does not indicate any circumstances which permit or justify the use of that remedy, his petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. (CC:PLA) (RP, ilcd)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 15, 2013

Filing 15 ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/15/2013. Relief under section 2255 would have been adequate for the ineffective assistance of counsel argument Hoskins now advances. Section 2255 is not inadequate simply because the statute plac es severe restrictions on the filing of second of successive section 2255 motions - otherwise, § 2241 would be an all-too-convenient means of circumventing the second-or-successive restrictions in § 2255(h). Hernandez v. Federal Correctiona l Inst., No. 08-C-499, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52156 (E.D. Wis. June 10, 2008). Hoskins does not claim that the charged conduct is no longer a crime - he abandoned his actual innocence claims is they relate to his armed career criminal enhancement. Ins tead, he challenges the constitutionality of his sentence by bringing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because this challenge is not cognizable in a section 2241 petition and Hoskins does not indicate any circumstances which permit or justify the use of that remedy, his petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. (CC:PLA) (RP, ilcd)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hoskins v. Rios
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Walter Hoskins, III
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Ricardo Rios
Represented By:	Richard N Cox
Represented By:	Greggory R Walters
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?