Miller v. Fitzhugh

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JUSTIN RAY MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE FITZHUGH, Sheriff,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:25-cv-00321
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Justin Ray Miller, former pre-trial detainee in the custody of the Rutherford County
Sheriff’s Department in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and current inmate of the Davidson County
Sheriff’s Office in Nashville, Tennessee, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis Petition for Relief
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in March 2025. (Doc. No. 1).
As a preliminary matter, because Petitioner’s site of detention has changed, the proper
respondent to the petition is the Sheriff of Davidson County, Daron Hall.1 See Rumsfield v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (“The proper respondent is the custodian who has the power to
produce the petitioner before the habeas court.”).
Respondent Daron Hall has filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition (Doc. No. 15), to which
Petitioner has responded in opposition (Doc. Nos. 17, 23, 24). Petitioner has filed a Motion to
Compel (Doc. No. 18), a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), a Motion for Records
1 Counsel for Mr. Hall refers to him as “Darren Hall” but the Court takes judicial notice of the
proper 	spelling 	of 	Sheriff 	Daron 	Hall’s 	name 	and 	uses 	it 	herein. 	See
https://sheriff.nashville.gov/meet-sheriff-hall/ (last visited February 2, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

2
(Doc. No. 25), a “Motion of Consideration” (Doc. No. 27), and a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc.
No. 28).
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 6, 2023, a Rutherford County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Petitioner
in Case Number 89771 on one count of attempted theft in the amount of $10,000 to $60,000 and
one count of criminal simulation of the same amount. (Doc. No. 13-1 at 37). On April 8, 2025,
Petitioner accepted a settlement agreement and entered a plea of guilty as to the charge of
attempted theft in the amount of $10,000 to $60,000. (Id. at 63). In accepting this agreement,
Petitioner accepted the agreed-upon sentence of eight years to serve at forty-five percent as a
Range II offender. (Id. at 69, 73). Petitioner’s eight-year sentence was suspended to supervised
probation. (Id. at 73). As part of the settlement agreement, Petitioner’s indicted charge of criminal
simulation was dismissed. (Id. at 77). Public case information confirms that Petitioner has not
sought 	post-conviction 	relief. 	See 	Rutherford 	County 	Online 	Court 	Records 	System
(https://rutherford.tncrtinfo.com/crCaseForm.aspx?id=2A9336A8-E5C4-4778-9A87-
E4D5961DC4DF&dsid=23e44664) (last accessed February 3, 2026).
On March 16, 2025,2 Petitioner filed the instant pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C § 2241. (Doc. No. 1). On April 1, 2025, Petitioner filed a Supplement to his
2 Under the “prison mailbox rule” of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988), and the Sixth
Circuit’s subsequent extension of that rule in Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810, 812 (6th Cir. 2002)
and Scott v. Evans, 116 F. App’x 699, 701 (6th Cir. 2004), a prisoner’s legal mail is considered
“filed” when he deposits his mail in the prison mail system to be forwarded to the Clerk of Court.
Thus, the Court considers the date of filing as March 16, 2025, the date that Petitioner deposited
his petition into the prison mail system (see Doc. No. 1 at 9) instead of March 20, 2025, the date
the petition was received by the Clerk’s Office.
In the Memorandum filed in support of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, counsel for Respondent
asserts that Petitioner was not incarcerated at the time he filed the instant petition. (See Doc. No.
16 at 2 n.3) (asserting that the prison mailbox rule did not apply to Petitioner because he was not
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

3
petition. (Doc. No. 6). By Order entered on May 6, 2025, this Court directed Respondent to file a
response to the petition. (Doc. No. 8). Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, asking the Court to
dismiss the petition without prejudice because Petitioner has not fully exhausted his available state-
court remedies. (Doc. No. 14).
II. ANALYSIS OF PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a writ of habeas corpus extends to a prisoner “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treatises of the Unites States[.]” 	The Rules Governing
2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) apply to habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Williams v.
Holloway, No. 2:14-cv-02652-STA-tmp, 2016 WL 1058017, at *4 n.2 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 14.
2016). A petition for a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 generally arises from “a challenge to the
manner in which a sentence is executed, rather than the validity of the sentence itself.” Capaldi v.
Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893
(6th Cir. 1991)).
Here, at the time he filed his Section 2241 petition (on March 16, 2025), Petitioner was a
pre-trial detainee in the custody of the Rutherford County Adult Detention Center awaiting the
disposition of his criminal charges in Case # 89771. Among other allegations, Petitioner alleges
that he was deprived of the ability to represent himself in his criminal case because the state-court
judge appointed a public defender to Petitioner. (See Doc. No. 1 at 3, 6). 	At that time, filing a
incarcerated at the time he filed his petition). However, Petitioner provided the Rutherford County
Adult Detention Center as his mailing address in his petition (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 10) and submitted
a certified inmate trust account statement signed by the custodian of his account at the Rutherford
County Adult Detention Center. (Doc. No. 2 at 3). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner was
incarcerated at the time he filed his petition on March 16, 2025, and eligible for the application of
the prison mailbox rule.
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

4
petition under Section 2241 was appropriate because Petitioner was a state pre-trial detainee who
alleged he was being held in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
However, on April 8, 2025, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to his charges while his
Section 2241 petition was pending. Once that happened, Petitioner’s custody was based on a
judgment of conviction, making his Section 2241 petition moot unless it challenged the execution
of his sentence (as opposed to the validity of the conviction itself). None of the claims raised in
the petition challenged the execution of his sentence.
In Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Respondent notes that “Petitioner’s habeas petition is
to be reviewed through the lens of § 2254 because Petitioner is in custody on a final state court
judgment.” (Doc. No. 15 at 1 n.2). Respondent then goes on in his Memorandum in Support of the
Motion to Dismiss to analyze Petitioner’s claims under those brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254.
Petitioner does not appear to have ever filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
the conviction in Case Number 89771.3 Nonetheless, the Court finds that it is inappropriate at this
time to construe the instant petition as one brought under Section 2254 because, barring certain
circumstances, Petitioner only has one opportunity to file a Section 2254 petition and would not
have been on notice that his Section 2241 petition was being construed as his one Section 2254
petition. See Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 713-715 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding that the rule of In
re Shelton, which requires notice to a petitioner before the petition is recharacterized as a Section
2255 petition, applied to a petitioner’s Section 2241 petition which the district court had
recharacterized as a Section 2254 petition without providing notice to the petitioner); Warren v.
3 Petitioner filed another Section 2241 petition after the instant petition, but that petition appears
to concern charges pending in the Davidson County General Sessions Court. See Justin Ray Miller
v. Darren Hall, Sheriff, No. 3:25-cv-1022 (M.D. Tenn. filed 9/10/2025) (Richardson, J.).
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

5
Miller, No. 1:05-CV-651, 2005 WL 3007107, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2005) (“Rather than
recharacterizing Petitioner’s claims [brought in his Section 2241 petition] to § 2254 claims, this
Court shall dismiss his claims without prejudice to avoid any adverse consequences with respect
to any § 2254 claim he may file in the future.”). Accordingly, the instant Section 2241 petition
will be dismissed without prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Petition for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc.
No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED, but for different reasons
than those set forth in the Motion and supporting Memorandum of Law.
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 18), Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
19), Motion for Records (Doc. No. 25), “Motion of Consideration” (Doc. No. 27), and Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 28) are DENIED AS MOOT.
A habeas petitioner seeking to appeal must either pay the $605 filing fee required by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1917 or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis under to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24(a). See Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997). Rule
24(a) provides that a party seeking pauper status on appeal must first file a motion in the district
court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, Rule 24(a) also
provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, or
otherwise denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the petitioner must file his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis in the appellate court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
In this case, because the Court elects to dismiss the instant Section 2241 without prejudice
to Petitioner’s ability to file a Section 2254 petition rather than recharacterize the Section 2241
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

6
petition as Petitioner’s one Section 2254 petition without notice to Petitioner, the Court
CERTIFIES, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), that any appeal in this matter
would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $605 appellate filing fee or file a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit within 30 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00321 Document 29 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>