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.

Redd v. Kirby

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 26, 2017

DERRICK VINCENT REDD, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN MARK KIRBY, Respondent.

          Derrick Vincent Redd Petitioner Pro se

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner Derrick Vincent Redd, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Fairton, New Jersey, filed a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) At this time, the Court will review the 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 Petition will be dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner provides the following procedural history in his Petition:

In 1997, the petitioner was charged in a seven-count indictment with offenses related to the armed robberies of three banks and the attempted robbery of a fourth. He pleaded guilty to two counts of the indictment (counts 3 and 4) and was convicted of the remaining counts following a jury trial (Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7). The Petitioner was sentenced on August 22, 1997 for Counts 3 and 4, and on December 12, 1997 for Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793 (4th Cir 1998).
The Petitioner has repeatedly sought to collaterally attack his convictions and sentence. In 2001, he filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court denied the petition. The Petitioner then appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which found no reversible error and denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. United States v. Redd, No. 01-6152 (April 18, 2001).
In 2003, the Petitioner filed a motion in the Fourth Circuit seeking permission to file a successive application for collateral relief, this time under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. In re: Redd, No. 03-264. The Fourth Circuit denied the Petitioner's motion. Id. (October 14, 2003).
In 2006, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of West Virginia. Redd v. Haynes, Case No. 5:06cv113. The Petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw his petition, which the District Court granted. Id.
In 2007, the Petitioner again filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of West Virginia, which the District Court dismissed. Redd v. Driver, Case No. 5:07cv168 (November 5, 2008). The Fourth Circuit dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of this matter for his failure to prosecute. Redd v. Driver, No. 08-8472 (February 5, 2009).
In 2007, the Petitioner filed two motions in the Fourth Circuit seeking permission to file successive applications for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2244. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the Petitioner's first motion and denied the second. In re: Redd, No. 07-100 (January 16, 2007); In re: Redd, No. 07-212(July 19, 2007).
The petitioner subsequently filed a writ of mandamus, which the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema dismissed as a successive § 2255 petition. Redd v. United States, Case No. 1:09cv1301 (February 16, 2010). The Fourth Circuit denied authorization for Redd to file a successive §2255 petition and dismissed his appeal. United States v. Redd, No 10-6586 (August 3, 2010).
The Petitioner then filed a common law writ of habeas corpus. The Court dismissed the writ as a successive § 2255 petition. The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. United States v. Redd, No. 12-7216 (September 14, 2012).
The Petitioner also filed two timely second and successive § 2255 petition[s] relating to United States v. Johnson, and ...

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.