United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Roderick Black, # 28287-054 Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner Roderick Black, a prisoner confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Fairton, New
Jersey, filed this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging his conviction and sentence. (ECF
No. 1). Because it appears from a review of the Petition that
this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
Court outlined the procedural history of Petitioner's
criminal matters in an opinion dismissing a previous §
2241 from Petitioner:
On September 2, 1994, Black was convicted of various drug
trafficking offenses, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina. United States v.
Black, 97 F.3d 1449 (4th Cir. 1996). He was also
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1), which
criminalizes using or carrying a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime, and engaging in a continuing criminal
enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848. Id.
Black was sentenced to consecutive terms of life in prison
and sixty months. Id. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court on September 18, 1996. Id.
In early 2001, Black filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
with the sentencing court, which denied the motion as
untimely. United States v. Black, 19 F. App'x 78
(4th Cir. 2001). He pursued an appeal, and on September 19,
2001, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court's
conclusion that the § 2255 motion was untimely, denied a
certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.
On May 2, 2007, Black filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania to challenge his 1994 conviction. The district
court dismissed the petition on the ground that Black could
only challenge his conviction via a § 2255 motion.
Black v. Warden, USP Lewisburg, 253 F. App'x
209, 210 (3d Cir. 2007).
This Court also notes that in 2010 Petitioner filed a second
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of North Carolina. In that motion, he
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to his
counsel's failure to properly pursue a motion to reduce
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in the
underlying criminal case. The United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied
Petitioner's motion. Black v. United States, No.
2:10-CV-46-BO, 2010 WL 4860349, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 22,
In 2014, Petitioner filed a third motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. In that motion, Petitioner challenged his original
sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to the Supreme
Court's ruling in Alleyne v. United States, 133
S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). In an Order dated
September 17, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the motion as a
second or successive motion for which Petitioner had not
sought authorization to file from the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Black v. United States, No. 2:14-CV-35-BO,
2014 WL 4686677, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 17, 2014),
reconsideration denied, No. 2:14-CV-35-BO, 2014 WL 5307465
(E.D. N.C. Oct. 16, 2014).
Black v. Kirby, No. 16-1553, 2016 WL 3219864, at
*1-2 (D.N.J. June 7, 2016).
previous § 2241 petition before this Court, Petitioner
argued that he was actually innocent of the life sentence
imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841. Id. He further
asserted that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to
challenge his conviction or sentence because he was sentenced
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Burrage v.
United States, 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014).
Id. The Court found that it was without jurisdiction
to consider Petitioner's claims in a § 2241 and
denied the petition. Id.
instant Petition, Petitioner argues that pursuant to
United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587 (3d
Cir. 1988), Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137
(1995) and Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614
(1998), he is actually innocent of his § 924(c)
conviction. (ECF No. 1.)