United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Hight Fairton Federal Correctional Institution Petitioner
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D. JUDGE.
Steven Hight, 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
dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals provided the following summary
of Petitioner's underlying criminal case in a prior
Following a jury trial, Hight was convicted of a Hobbs Act
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), using a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of § 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). In May 2005, he was sentenced as a career
offender to a term of 240 months of imprisonment. We affirmed
the judgment on appeal. United States v. Hight, 181
F. App'x 226 (3d Cir. 2006).
In 2007, Hight filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied on the merits.
Rather than appealing from that denial, Hight filed two
motions, one challenging the constitutionality of §
922(g), the other seeking a modification of his sentence via
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The District Court denied the
motions, and we affirmed (albeit treating the former motion
as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and denying
Hight a certificate of appealability for that claim). See
United States v. Hight, 304 F. App'x 31 (3d Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
United States v. Hight, 611 Fed.Appx. 65, 66 (3d
Cir. 2015). On May 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a request for
leave to file a second or successive § 2255 petition
with the Third Circuit, based on the Supreme Court's
holding in United States v. Johnson, ___U.S.___, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Re: Steven Hight,
Civil Action No. 16-2263 (3d Cir. 2016). That matter is
currently stayed. Id.
instant § 2241 Petition before this Court, Petitioner
argues that based on the holdings in Mathis v. United
States, 579 U.S. (2016); Holt v. United States,
843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016); Hill v. Masters, 836
F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Wright,
681 Fed.Appx. 418 (5th Cir. 2017); and United States v.
Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569, 570 (5th Cir. 2016), his prior
convictions no longer qualify him as a career offender and he
should be re-sentenced. (Pet. 5-11.)
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. SeeHunterson 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 ...