United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Deangelo Beasley Bey, No. 24416-076 Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Deangelo Beasley Bey, a prisoner presently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) at
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix New Jersey, filed this Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which
appears to challenge the legality of his imprisonment. ECF
No. 1, at 2. 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
pled guilty and was convicted of violations of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841 and 846 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on January 26, 2012.
See No. 10-cr-20386, ECF No. 173 (W.D. Tenn.)
(minute entry). He was also sentenced on that day to two
concurrent terms of 180 months' imprisonment followed by
four (4) years of supervised release. Id., ECF No.
177 (judgment). Although Petitioner initially appealed his
judgment, it appears that the appeal was dismissed for want
of prosecution. See id., ECF No. 184. On October 20,
2015, Petitioner filed a motion to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S. Sentencing
Commission's Amendment 782. Id., ECF No. 197.
The Western District of Tennessee granted that motion and
reduced Petitioner's sentence to 144 months'
imprisonment on November 3, 2017. Id., ECF No. 200.
Petitioner has never filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence with his sentencing court or otherwise.
Petition, Petitioner appears to challenge the validity of his
imprisonment and seems to argue that he has not been
convicted of a crime. “There has been no Judicial process
used in Tennessee to seize my body and it be transferred in
the State of New Jersey. Chief Executive Officer David Ortiz
[Warden of FCI Ft. Dix] never noticed grievant that he has
been, by due process of law or executive military fiat power,
convicted of a crime.” No. 18-cv-3796, ECF No. 1, Pet.
at 4. Petitioner asserts that “he has been held captive
for over 6 years, ” presumably because Petitioner
asserts he has never been convicted of a crime under which he
could be imprisoned. Id. at 5. Petitioner seeks the
production of “documentary and certified proof to
establish, jurisdiction and legality of grievant[‘]s
[Petitioner's] restraint, ” or, in the alternative,
“the immediate release and discharge of grievant from
restraint.” Id. at 6.
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
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,
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 imposed
should be brought under § 2255, while challenges to the
manner in which a sentence is executed should be brought
under § 2241).
2255, however, contains a safety valve where “it
appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of [Petitioner's]
detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). In
Dorsainvil, the Third Circuit held that the remedy
provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective,
” permitting resort to § 2241 (a statute without
timeliness or successive petition limitations), where a
prisoner who previously had filed a § 2255 motion on
other grounds “had no earlier ...