United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar Al-Haj, Petitioner pro se
B. SIMANDLE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed for lack
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).
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,
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
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).
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 warnings, and that both his trial
attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney committed
fraud upon the trial court.
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 ...