United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20774
Conference Calendar
CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
LINDA PRESCOTT, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents-Appellees.
-------------------------
CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC Nos. H-02-CV-4878
H-03-CV-280
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carol Johnene Morris, federal prisoner #76547-080, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-20774
-2-
for writ of habeas corpus. Morris contends that the district
court erred when it disregarded her express consent to proceed
before the magistrate judge, consolidated her petition for
sentencing credit with her petition alleging due process
violations, and construed her consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence and
dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Although Morris consented to proceed before the magistrate
judge, she does not allege, nor does the record reflect, that
Respondents likewise consented. Accordingly, as all parties did
not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge, the district
court did not err. See FED. R. CIV. P. 73(a).
Further, Morris has failed to demonstrate that the district
court abused its discretion when it consolidated the two
petitions which involved challenges to the same conviction and
sentence. See Dillard v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., 961 F.2d 1148, 1161 (5th Cir. 1992).
Finally, Morris was contesting the validity of her sentence,
as imposed by the district court, rather than its execution by
the Bureau of Prisons. Thus, the district court properly
construed her consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion must be filed in the district court which imposed the
sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Solsona v. Warden, 821
F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Morris was convicted and
No. 03-20774
-3-
sentenced in the Western District of Texas. Therefore, the
district court properly dismissed Morris’ petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.