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.

Jordan v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 7, 2017

BRUCESTAN T. JORDAN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al. Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MADELINE COX ARLEO, U.S.D.J.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter has been opened to the Court by Petitioner's filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 through Rule 1 (b), this Court is required to screen the petition and determine whether it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." For the reasons explained below, this Court will dismiss the challenge to Petitioner's conviction for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the challenge to his supervised release as moot, but will, in the interests of justice, transfer the matter to the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in lieu of dismissal.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Middle District of Tennessee. The relevant dates for Petitioner's conviction and direct appeal have been summarized as follows:

A federal jury found the petitioner guilty of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft on November 30, 2006. United States of America v. Brucestan Jordan, Criminal No. 3:06-00165 (M.D. Tenn.) (Docket No. 79). On May 31, 2007, the Court sentenced the movant to forty-eight (48) months incarceration. (Id. Docket No. 131). Judgment was entered on June 1, 2007. (Id., Docket No. 134). The movant filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2007. (Id., Docket No. 136). On November 13, 2008, the mandate issued by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence. (Id., Docket No. 147). The movant filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on January 26, 2009, (Id., Docket No. 148), which was denied on March 3, 2009 (Id., Docket No. 149).

Jordan v. United States, No. 3:10-CV-00525, 2010 WL 2640514, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. June 29, 2010).

         On February 16, 2010, Petitioner, who was then-incarcerated in Miami Federal Correctional Institution, submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus titled "The Great Writ 'Common Law Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus'" in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. (See PACER, Civ. Act. No. 10-174, Pet. at 1 (M.D. Tenn.).) Petitioner stated in the Petition that "this Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be construed as a 28 USC [sic] § 2255 or any other remedy under the Antiterroism [sic] and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)." (Id. at 1.) The petition, among other claims, raised a claim pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 647 (2009). (See id., Dkt. No. 1-3, Pet. at 30-31.) The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee construed the petition as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismissed the petition as improperly filed, and declined to transfer the petition to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Id. at Dkt. No. 7.)

         On April 8, 2010, Petitioner submitted a petition for habeas relief in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which was docketed on April 13, 2010; the District Court construed the petition as a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255 motion") and transferred it to the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. (See PACER, Civ. Act. No. 10-525, at Dkt. Nos. 1, 4-7.) Among other claims, the motion raised a claim pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Flores- Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 647 (2009). (Id., Dkt. No. 1, Pet. at 30.) On June 29, 2010, The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee provided Petitioner with thirty days to show cause why his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed as time barred and informed him that failure to comply with the Court's order would result in his petition being dismissed as untimely. See Jordan v. United States, No. 3:10-CV-00525, 2010 WL 2640514, at *2 (M.D. Term. June 29, 2010). The government moved to dismiss Petitioner's § 2255 motion, and the Court granted the motion on September 8, 2011, finding that Petitioner had filed his § 2255 motion for relief beyond the AEDPA's one-year limitations period and had failed to provide a basis for equitable tolling. (See PACER, Jordan v. United States, Civ. Act. No. 10-525, at Dkt. No. 71.) The Court also denied a certificate of appealability. See Id. Petitioner did not appeal that determination.

         On February 5, 2013, Petitioner submitted the instant "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("Petition"), which was docketed on February 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1.) The matter was originally assigned to the Honorable Faith S. Hochberg.

         On March 25, 2013, jurisdiction over Petitioner's supervised released was transferred from the Middle District of Tennessee to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605. (See Crim. Act. No. 13-210, Dkt. Nos. 1-2.) It appears from the record that the government sought to revoke Petitioner's supervised release based on Petitioner's failure to inform probation of his employment. (Id., Dkt. No. 3.) The criminal matter was also initially assigned to Judge Hochberg.

         On March 16, 2015, an Order reassigning Petitioner's habeas case from Judge Hochberg to the undersigned was sent to Petitioner at his last known address and was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.) On April 22, 2015, the Court administratively terminated the action for failure to comply with L. Civ. R. 10.1. See L. Civ. R. 10.1. (a) (Counsel and/or unrepresented parties must advise the Court of any change in their or their client's address within seven days of being apprised of such change by filing a notice of said change with the Clerk.").

         On May 21, 2015, Petitioner filed an "Emergency Motion to Reopen Case and Enforcement of TRO" in both his habeas case (Dkt. No 5) and his criminal case. (Crim. Act. No. 13-210, Dkt. No. 11.) In his motions for relief, Petitioner provided his updated address, sought to reopen his habeas case, and sought leave from the Court to travel to Florida to visit his daughter. On May 26, 2015, this Court entered an Order in Petitioner's criminal case memorializing the Court's issuance of a verbal authorization for Petitioner's out-of-state travel request and administratively terminated both motions as moot. (Crim. Act. No. 13-210, Dkt. No. 12; Civ. Act. 13-798, Dkt. No. 6.)

         On October 1, 2015, the Court found that Petitioner violated the terms of his supervised release, and ordering Petitioner to serve one day in custody and a one-year term of ...


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.