United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Anthony Hadaway, Fairton Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Petitioner Pro se.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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.
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
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).
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.)
States Code Title 28, Section 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
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,
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 ...