Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar-Al-Haj v. Kirby

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 25, 2017

AHMED MOHAMMED-ABDULLAH-OMAR AL-HAJ, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN MARK KIRBY, Respondent.

          Ahmed Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar Al-Haj, Petitioner pro se

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Ahmed Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar Al-Haj's (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petition, Docket Entry 1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice as he did not submit a certified account statement as required by Local Civil Rule 81.2. However, the Court will review the petition as Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

         For the reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In 2005, Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea on an indictment charging him with possessing 332 pounds of pseudoephedrine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), and reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision on appeal. See United States v. Al-Haj, 181 F.App'x 717 (10th Cir. 2006).[1]

         On August 29, 2016, this Court dismissed a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging violations of Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights for lack of jurisdiction. Ahmed Muhammed Abdullah-Omar Al-Hajj v. Kirby, No. 16-1479, 2016 WL 4508229 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Ahmed Muhammed Abull Al-Haj v. Warden Fairton FCI, No. 16-3771 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2017). Petitioner filed this new § 2241 petition on November 9, 2016.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Petitioner brings this petition as a pro se litigant. The Court has an obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and to hold them to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept. 19, 2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

         Nevertheless, a federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         Section 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence.” Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts he is “actually innocent” of his crimes and sentence. Petition ¶ 10(c). In his brief in support, however, Petitioner argues he did not consent to the search of his vehicle as he was not given an interpreter after being stopped by the Kansas Highway Patrol, that the officer conducting the traffic stop and search failed to provide him with Miranda[2] warnings, and that both his trial attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney committed fraud upon the trial court.

         “[Section] 2255 expressly prohibits a district court from considering a challenge to a prisoner's federal sentence under § 2241 unless the remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.'” Snyder v. Dix, 588 F. App'x 205, 206 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); see also In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). “A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Petitioner makes no attempt to make such a showing, and the petition does not allege that the conduct forming the basis of his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.