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.

Felder v. Kirby

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 14, 2018

JOHN FELDER, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN MARK KIRBY, Respondent.

          JOHN FELDER, PETITIONER PRO SE

          OPINION

          HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         John Felder moves for relief from this Court's August 30, 2017 order dismissing his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Motion for Relief, Docket Entry 10. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied without prejudice.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner's history was briefly recounted by the Court in its opinion transferring the habeas petition to the Third Circuit for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h):

Petitioner was sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Eastern District”) on June 9, 2008 after being convicted by a jury of drug and firearm offenses. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and 264-month sentence.
In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District challenging his convictions. However, the court treated his § 2255 motion as a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and denied relief. The Third Circuit affirmed the recharacterization and result. Petitioner later filed a § 2255 motion raising arguments pursuant to Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). The Eastern District denied the motion.

Felder v. Kirby, No. 17-1534, 2017 WL 3736658, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017) (footnote and internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Felder, 529 Fed.Appx. 111 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner asked the Court to resentence him without the career offender enhancement because his prior convictions no longer qualified him as a career offender citing Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), and Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016).

         The Court concluded that existing Third Circuit precedent did not confer jurisdiction to review Petitioner's challenges to his sentencing enhancement under § 2241. August 30, 2017 Opinion at 4-5 (citing United States v. Brown, 456 Fed.Appx. 79, 81 (3d Cir. 2012 (per curiam); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d, 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997)). The Court exercised its discretion to transfer the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Third Circuit for review under § 2255(h) as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. at n.2. See In re Felder, No. 17-2902 (3d Cir. dismissed Oct. 31, 2017).

         On March 27, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant motion under Rule 60(b). He argues the Court erred by converting the motion to a second or successive § 2255 motion without providing him notice under United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999). He also argues the Court erred by concluding it lacked jurisdiction under § 2241. He noted there are several cases pending before the Third Circuit raising identical issues that were not recharacterized as § 2255(h) motions.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

          A Rule 60(b) motion is “addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all the relevant circumstances.” Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 648 (3d Cir. 1981). Rule 60(b) “does not confer upon the district courts a ‘standardless residual of discretionary power to set aside judgments.'” Moolenaar v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3d Cir. 1987). “Rather, relief under Rule 60(b) is available only under such circumstances that the ‘overriding interest in the finality and repose of judgments may properly be overcome.'” Tischio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998) (quoting Martinez-McBean v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 913 (3d Cir. 1977); see also Moolenaar, 822 F.2d at 1346 (“The remedy provided by Rule 60(b) is ‘extraordinary and special circumstances must justify granting relief under it.”) (internal citation omitted). “Rule 60(b) must be applied ‘[s]ubject to the propositions that the finality of judgments is a sound principle that should not lightly be cast aside, [and] ... is not a substitute for appeal.” Kock v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 811 F.2d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted).

         IV. ...


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.