United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Felder, Petitioner pro se.
B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge.
Felder, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fairton, New
Jersey, has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Amended Petition,
Docket Entry 7. For the reasons expressed below, this Court
will treat this as a motion to file a second or successive
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and transfer
it to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
was sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(“Eastern District”) on June 9, 2008 after being
convicted by a jury of drug and firearm offenses. Amended
Petition ¶ 6; see also United States v. Felder,
529 F.App'x 111, 111 (3d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the convictions and 264-month sentence. United
States v. Felder, 389 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2010).
2011, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 in the Eastern District challenging his convictions.
Memorandum of Law at 3. However, the court treated his §
2255 motion as a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and denied relief. Id.
The Third Circuit affirmed the recharacterization and result.
Felder, 529 F.App'x at 112-13. Petitioner later
filed a § 2255 motion raising arguments pursuant to
Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013).
Memorandum of Law at 3. The Eastern District denied the
filed this § 2241 petition citing Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), and Holt v. United
States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016) on March 7, 2017.
This Court originally administratively terminated the
petition on March 8, 2017 as Petitioner had not paid the
filing fee or used the § 2241 form provided by the
Clerk. Docket Entry 2. Petitioner paid the filing fee on May
8, 2017, but did not submit the correct form until July 10,
2017. As Petitioner has paid the filing fee and submitted the
correct form, the Court will grant his motion to reopen the
matter for review.
asks the Court to resentence him without the career offender
enhancement because his prior convictions do not qualify him
as a career offender.
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
(1976)). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting
submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of
tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney Gen., 878 F.2d 714,
721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley,
414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399
U.S. 912 (1970).
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). 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) (per
curiam) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). “[Section] 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 ...