Ocampo v. Hemmingway, No. 2:2019cv12819 - Document 38 (E.D. Mich. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER re 37 Appeal Mandate. Habeas petition dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Download PDF
Ocampo v. Hemmingway Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBERT JAMES OCAMPO, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:19-CV-12819 HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, Respondent. ______________________________/ ORDER REOPENING THE CASE UPON REMAND AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE HABEAS PETITION Federal prisoner Robert James Ocampo (APetitioner@) filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 challenging his federal criminal convictions and sentences, ECF No. 1, as well as several amendments to that petition. ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 13. The Court concluded that he was not entitled to relief under ' 2241 and denied the petition (as amended). ECF Nos. 25, 26. Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which held the case in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court=s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023). Following the decision in Jones, the Sixth Circuit vacated this Court=s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the habeas petition for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Ocampo v. Hemingway, No. 22-1994 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023). ECF Nos. 35, 36. Accordingly, the Court REOPENS this case for further consideration on remand. Having reviewed the matter, and for the reasons stated by the Sixth Circuit relative to Jones and its preclusive effect on Petitioner=s habeas claims in this case, id., the Court Dockets.Justia.com DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This case is again closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Nancy G. Edmunds NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 8, 2024 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.