The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Renee Marie Bumb
Hugo Lionel Sanchez-Ramos, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his imprisonment pursuant to a federal sentence imposed on August 11, 1998, by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. This Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. Before the Court is Petitioner's "Objection and Refusal for Cause of "Order" dated January 14, 2011 issued by Renee Marie Bumb (FRCP 62), Motion to Vacate "Order" dated January 14, 2011 as VOID (FRCP 60, and FRE 601, 602 and 605), and Motion for Production of Separate Finding of Facts (FRCP 52) and Motion for Additional Relief." (Docket Entry #11.) For the reasons expressed below, this Court will deny Petitioner's motion.
In the Petition, Petitioner challenged his incarceration pursuant to an aggregate 360-month term of imprisonment imposed by judgment entered August 11, 1998, based on his plea of guilty to taking money by force and violence which was in the custody of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and in committing such offense or avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension, assaulting and causing the death of Angel Garcia Beltran by the use of firearms (count one) and aiding and abetting in the carrying and user of firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence (count two). See United States v. Sanchez-Ramos, Crim. No. 96-0001-PG-1 (D. P.R. filed Jan. 3, 1996). The Court of appeals dismissed Petitioner's direct appeal on February 19, 2002.
On July 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, asserting that counsel was ineffective for several reasons. See Sanchez-Ramos v. United States, Civ. No. 05-2268 (PG) report & recommendation (D.P.R. Mar. 6, 2006). By order entered April 18, 2006, Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the motion as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Petitioner filed the § 2241 Petition in this Court on May 20, 2010. (Docket Entry #1-1.) The Petition raised the following grounds: (1) the authority and/or jurisdiction to imprison Petitioner has been terminated by action of Ellen Fine Levine, offsetting and discharging all debts associated with Petitioner's prison account; (2) the judgment of conviction was issued in violation of due process because the indictment was not signed by any grand jury foreman or United States Attorney, Petitioner had no opportunity to challenge the qualification of members of the grand jury, no valid bill of indictment was presented to Petitioner establishing a charge, the indictment did not identify any statute, regulation or rule establishing any duty of Petitioner to any act of legislative authority of the United States, the United States of America lacks legal standing to sue, no evidence shows that the party named in the judgment of conviction is Petitioner, United States failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the judgment of conviction was not properly authenticated; (3) the judgment of conviction is a nullity as the superceding indictment was not lawfully issued, United States lacks subject matter and territorial jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is not an Article III court and lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear any case against Petitioner. (Id., pp. 3-7.)
By Order and Opinion entered January 14, 2011, this Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241 because a § 2255 motion was not an inadequate or ineffective remedy. (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 10.)
On February 3, 2011, Petitioner filed the motion presently before this Court, which he labeled "Objection and Refusal for Cause of "Order" dated January 14, 2011 issued by Renee Marie Bumb (FRCP 62), Motion to Vacate "Order" dated January 14, 2011 as VOID (FRCP 60, and FRE 601, 602 and 605), and Motion for Production of Separate Finding of Facts (FRCP 52) and Motion for Additional Relief." (Docket Entry#11.)
Petitioner contends that the Order of dismissal is void because it was issued in violation of due process of law:
a) [The Court] failed to Order responding party(s) respond and file a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction or the presiding judge . . . failed to file a motion su[a] sponte to dismiss for want of jurisdiction thereby affording the moving party the due process right of Notice and Opportunity to Respond.
b) The "Order" . . . was factually baseless and based solely on legal conclusions and opinions and completely devoid of any separate finding of facts (FRCP 52), which denies the Moving Party's Substantial Right to due process for ...