United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Pedro Pomales, Petitioner Pro Se Federal Medical Center Ayer, MA.
Anne B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney Office of the United States Attorney Camden, NJ. Attorney for Respondent.
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge.
Pedro Pomales, a federal prisoner confined at FMC Devens in Massachusetts,  filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 7, 2014. (Docket Entry 1). On March 5, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an answer (Docket Entry 7). Petitioner did not file any opposition to the motion. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this petition, and it is not in the interest of justice to transfer the Petition, this Court will grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner was arrested in Springfield, Massachusetts on September 20, 2010, and was found to be in possession of a firearm and 1.3 grams of crack cocaine. (Docket Entry 1 at 3). On June 19, 2012, he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute or to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841; possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922); and carrying and possessing a firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Docket Entry 7-3 at 3-4). The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive sixty-month terms of incarceration. Petitioner neither filed a direct appeal nor a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Petitioner was confined at FCI Fairton in New Jersey when he filed this § 2241 petition, and he has since been transferred to FMC Devins in Massachusetts. Petitioner asserted in the present § 2241 petition that he is actually innocent of the crimes to which he pled guilty. Specifically, he asserts the Government's evidence was insufficient to prove he was engaged in drug trafficking or had conspired with others to trafficking drugs. (Docket Entry 1 at 3-5).
Respondent argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's application as the petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his sentence and that Petitioner has not met the preconditions of the "safety valve" clause of § 2255 as set forth in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997). As such, Petitioner must submit a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under § 2255 in the district of conviction, which is the District of Massachusetts.
Petitioner did not submit any opposition to Respondent's motion.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as a pro se litigant. A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
As Respondent's motion is unopposed, this Court will grant the motion. Even if opposition had been filed, such ...