United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort
Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se
with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, the in
forma pauperis application is granted and the habeas
petition will be summarily dismissed.
went to trial on a fifteen count indictment in the United
States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
(See C.D. Ill. Crim. No. 12-10082) Counts 1-4 were
for wire fraud and Counts 5-15 were for money laundering.
Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on all counts. He was
sentenced to 151 months on the four wire fraud convictions
and 120 months on the eleven money laundering convictions to
be served consecutively to each other for a total of 271
months imprisonment. On appeal, the United States Circuit
Court for the Seventh Circuit vacated petitioner's
convictions for money laundering and remanded the matter back
to the Central District of Illinois for resentencing on the
four wire fraud count convictions. On August 22, 2016, the
Central District of Illinois entered an amended judgment.
Petitioner was resentenced on the four wire fraud count
convictions to 135 months imprisonment.
2017, this Court received petitioner's petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner challenges his sentence, alleging the presentence
report (PSR) was not revised after the Seventh Circuit
remanded to the district court for resentencing, rendering
his subsequent sentence and imprisonment illegal.
STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
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); United
States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334 (3d Cir. 2007)
(“we construe pro se pleadings liberally.”)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S
.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). 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 (1996).
is seeking to have this Court review the sentence entered by
the Central District of Illinois after the Seventh Circuit
remanded back to that court. He argues the sentence is
invalid and his confinement is illegal because the U.S.
Probation Office did not revise the PSR before resentencing
him. 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 generally 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
remedy by the motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A § 2255 motion is
“inadequate or ineffective, ” which permits a
petitioner to resort to a § 2241 petition, “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). However, “[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or
ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not
grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has
expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of ... § 2255.”
Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539 (citations omitted).
“It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal
inability to use it, that is determinative.”
Id. at 538 (citation omitted). “The ...