United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Deangelo Beasley Bey, 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, Pet. at 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, the 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with his
sentencing court or otherwise.
previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 to challenge the validity of his
imprisonment in which he appeared to argue that he has not
been convicted of a crime. See No. 18-cv-3796, ECF
No. 1 at 4 ("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.") That § 2241 petition was dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. See No. 18-cv-3796, ECF Nos. 2
(opinion), 3 (order).
instant Petition, Petitioner again seeks to challenge the
validity of his confinement. Petitioner argues that his
"liberty is being unlawfully restrained under Color of
New Jersey State law, " ECF No. 1 at 1, and also that
his "freedom is being restrained without the documented
knowledge of the Nature and cause of this kidnapping, "
id. at 4. Petitioner requests that Respondent
articulate the authority under which Petitioner is being
held. Id. Petitioner believes that there is no
authority to hold him in a prison in New Jersey because he
has never been convicted of a crime in New Jersey:
"Petitioner is not, within the State of New Jersey today
nor any day in receipt of a service of process showing
that;DeAngelo-Beasley;Bey [sic] is or has been duly convicted
of a crime within the State of New Jersey, nor has he ever
been served disclosures by any State, showing he is or was
charged with a crime under the laws or customs or statutes of
the State of New Jersey, then how does Chief Executive
Officer David Ortiz [warden of FCI Ft. Dix] have the
authority and State police power to restrain the body of a
private American Citizen?" Id. Petitioner seeks
his immediate release from prison unless Respondent can
establish the reason for Petitioner's imprisonment.
See id. at 5.
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
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.
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 Fed.Appx. 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 ...