MORGAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAVID BRIAN MORGAN,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:26cv24-MCR-HTC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner David Brian Morgan, a prisoner in the Oklahoma state prison
system proceeding pro se, has filed a handwritten document titled, “Petition for
Execution of Sentence, or in the Alternative, Motion to Alter or Amend 18
U.S.C.A. § 3231, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(c)(3).” 	Doc. 1 at 6. 	Although the clerk
docketed the petition as one falling under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it is not entirely clear
whether Morgan is seeking to bring a petition under § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1
Regardless, under either statute, venue is not proper in this District because it is
1 “[C]hallenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than the validity of the sentence itself, are
properly brought under § 2241.” Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th
Cir. 2008). Here, the Court cannot ascertain if that provision applies because the petition consists
of a listing of various cases and statutes without any indication of how those cases or statutes relate
to Morgan’s basis for relief. Moreover, at the end of the petition, Morgan states that the indictment
in 	his 	underlying 	criminal 	case 	(Oklahoma 	County 	District 	Court 	CF-2010-7695) 	“was
insufficient” and “asks the court to vacate [his] conviction,” (Doc. 1 at 6), indicating he is
challenging the judgment and sentence. Thus, both provisions may apply. See Thomas v. Crosby,
371 F.3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004) (“where a prisoner is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
state court, his petition is subject to both § 2241 and § 2254”).
Case 1:26-cv-00024-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv24-MCR-HTC
neither the district which encompasses Morgan’s place of confinement or the district
which encompasses the court of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, in
the interest of justice, rather than transfer this action, the undersigned recommends
this Court follow what many other districts have done with similar petitions filed by
Morgan (or by his father, as his “next friend”) and DISMISS the petition as vexatious
and frivolous.
Morgan “pleaded guilty in 2011 in Oklahoma County to thirteen counts of
rape, kidnapping, molestation, and weapon possession … .” Morgan v. Biden, 2024
WL 534973, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 11, 2024) (referring to District Court of
Oklahoma County CF-2010-7695).2 Morgan filed a habeas petition under § 2254
challenging the judgment and conviction in March 2014, and that petition was
dismissed as untimely. 	See Morgan v. Addison, 2014 WL 2197995, at *1 (W.D.
Okla. May 27, 2014). 	Since that time, Morgan has flooded the courts across this
country with a slew of frivolous or successive petitions under both § 2241 and
§ 2254. See Biden, 2024 WL 534973, at *1 (collecting cases).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), venue for a habeas petition brought under
§ 2254 is either “the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court
for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced”
2 See also, https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CF-
2010-7695&cmid=2681411, last visited January 30, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00024-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv24-MCR-HTC
the defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Similarly, venue for a petition brought under
§ 2241 is generally the district of incarceration. 	See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 447 (2004) (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his
present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as
respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”); Fernandez v. United
Staes, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Section 2241 petitions may be brought
in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.”).
Here, Morgan is in custody at Joseph Harp Correctional Center, an institution
located in Lexington, Oklahoma, a city in the Western District of Oklahoma. 	His
conviction, which arose from the District Court in and for Oklahoma County, is also
located in the Western District of Oklahoma. 	Thus, venue is proper only in the
Western District of Oklahoma. It is not proper in this District.
However, 	“[w]hile the Court might transfer the Petition, [] Morgan[’]s
litigation history renders dismissal the appropriate disposition.” Morgan v. Warden
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr., 2024 WL 5006305, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2024), report
and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4867066 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2024). Under
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying
venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 	The interest of justice supports dismissal, rather
Case 1:26-cv-00024-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv24-MCR-HTC
than transfer in this case, as this is the latest in a string of frivolous habeas cases
Morgan or his father has filed nationwide. Many of these petitions were filed in
districts with no connection to petitioner or his conviction, such as the Southern
District of Georgia, the District Court of New Mexico, the Southern District of
Indiana, and the District of Columbia. 	See, e.g., Morgan v. Warden Joseph Harp
Corr. Ctr., 2024 WL 5006305 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2024); Morgan v. United
States, 2023 WL 3294413 (D.N.M. Apr. 25, 2023); Morgan v. United States, 2022
WL 3704682, at *1 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2022); and Morgan Next Friend for Morgan
v. Biden, 2024 WL 1344425, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2024).
Thus, as Morgan well knows by now, venue is improper in this District. See
Warden Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr., 2024 WL 5006305, at *2 (“Given the Morgans’
persistent refusal to acknowledge the prior dispositions of their habeas petitions or
the procedural requirements imposed on successive petitions, it seems clear that the
instant Petition was not filed in this District out of any confusion. It seems clear that
the instant Petition is merely another in the Morgans’ long list of procedurally
improper filings.”); United States, 2023 WL 3294413, at *2 (“Considering this
case’s history, the Court cannot conclude that Morgan filed his claims in good faith,
that the claims are likely meritorious, or that they are timely. It is therefore not in
the interest of justice to transfer this matter to the Western District of Oklahoma.”).
He is also well aware that, to the extent it is a § 2254 petition, it is an unauthorized
Case 1:26-cv-00024-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv24-MCR-HTC
successive petition. 	United States, 2022 WL 3704682, at *1 (dismissing § 2254
petition filed by Morgan’s father on his behalf for lack of jurisdiction as a successive
unauthorized petition).
Because venue is not proper in this Court and the petition is a frivolous
vexatious filing, this action should be DISMISSED.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that,
1. 	The petition (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.
2. 	A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
3. 	The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 2 nd day of February, 2026
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed
within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any
different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal
use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections
upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings
or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:26-cv-00024-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5