United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Macario Mar Rodriguez, Fort Dix Federal Correctional
Institution Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Macario Mar Rodriguez, a prisoner confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Fort Dix, New
Jersey, filed this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging the validity of his sentence. (ECF
No. 1). This matter was administratively terminated due to
Petitioner's failure to satisfy the filing fee
requirement (ECF Nos. 2, 3) and failure to provide any
information on his grounds for relief (ECF Nos. 4, 5).
Petitioner has since paid the required filing fee and
submitted an Amended Petition containing his grounds for
relief. (ECF No. 6.) At this time, the Court will review the
Amended Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, (amended Dec. 1, 2004), made applicable
to § 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas
Rules. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons set
forth below, the Amended Petition will be dismissed.
September 10, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas sentenced Petitioner to 144 months
imprisonment for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. See United States
v. Rodriguez, Crim. Action No. 13-1244 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 on July 6, 2016 and on July 28, 2016, the court entered
an order dismissing that petition as untimely. Rodriguez
v. United States, Civ. Action No. 16-197 (S.D. Tex.
November 15, 2016, Petitioner filed his Amended Section 2241
Petition with this Court, raising ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. (ECF No. 6.) The instant Amended Petition is
identical to the Section 2255 Petition that the Southern
District of Texas dismissed as untimely in July 2016.
respect to screening the instant habeas petition, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243 provides in relevant part:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a
writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue
an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
Petitioner is proceeding pro se, his petition is held to less
stringent standards than those pleadings drafted by lawyers.
See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 198 (3d Cir.
2010) (“It is the policy of the courts to give a
liberal construction to pro se habeas petitions”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Nevertheless, “a district court is authorized to
dismiss a [habeas] petition summarily when it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court[.]” Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320
is seeking to have this Court review the judgment of
conviction and sentence entered by the Southern District of
Texas in these habeas proceedings. Generally, a challenge to
the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jackman v.
Shartle, 535 F.App'x 87, 88 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.
2002)). This is true because § 2255 prohibits a district
court from entertaining a challenge to a prisoner's
federal sentence through § 2241 unless the remedy under
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.” See
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Indeed, § 2255(e) states that:
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such a
court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the