United States District Court, D. New Jersey
BRUCESTAN T. JORDAN, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES, et al. Respondents.
MADELINE COX ARLEO, U.S.D.J.
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
FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.").
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.)
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 ...