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.

Hadaway v. Kirby

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

December 11, 2017

ANTHONY HADAWAY, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN MARK KIRBY, Respondent.

          Anthony Hadaway, Fairton Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Petitioner Pro se.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner Anthony Hadaway, 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 a sentencing enhancement. (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 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On April 6, 2011, Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of two counts of Hobbs Act Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and sentenced to 293 months imprisonment. (Pet. 2.) Petitioner states that the Career Offender Enhancement was applied to him because of two prior Pennsylvania robbery convictions that established a guideline range of 210-262 months with a total offense level of 32 and a criminal history category of VI. (Id.) Petitioner filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, which were affirmed by the Third Circuit. United States v. Hadaway, 466 Fed.Appx. 154, 155 (3d Cir. 2012).

         Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was dismissed by the sentencing court as untimely. Hadaway v. United States, No. 09-161-01, 2014 WL 12709013, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2014). The Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. U.S. v. Hadaway, Civil Action No. 14-4417 (3d Cir. 2014). Petitioner then filed for permission to file a second or successive § 2255 petition based on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2552 (2015), which was denied by the Third Circuit. In re: Anthony Hadaway, Civil Action No. 16-2319 (3d Cir. 2016). While his request was pending, Petitioner filed a second § 2255 motion with the sentencing court, which he subsequently withdrew. Hadaway v. U.S., Civil Action No. 16-3466 (E.D. Pa. 2016).

         Shortly after he filed his second § 2255 petition, Petitioner filed the instant § 2241 Petition. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner argues that pursuant to Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), his Pennsylvania state offenses no longer qualify him as a career offender. (Pet. 3.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         United States Code Title 28, Section 2243, provides in relevant part as follows:

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 thereto.

         A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition must be construed liberally. See Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 148 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.

         B. Analysis

         As noted by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997), a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been the “usual avenue” for federal prisoners seeking to challenge the legality of their confinement. See also Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. McKeithan, 437 F. App'x 148, 150 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Walker, 980 F.Supp. 144, 145-46 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (challenges to a sentence as ...


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.