United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Anthony Hadaway, No. 63691-066 FCI Fairton Petitioner Pro se.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Anthony
Hadaway's Motion for Relief from Judgment, requesting
reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order
dismissing his Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack
of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 6. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will deny reconsideration.
initially filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge a sentencing
enhancement. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner argued that
pursuant to Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), his Pennsylvania state offenses no longer qualify him
as a career offender. Id. at 3. The Court reviewed
the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, made applicable to § 2241 petitions
through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, determined that it
lacked jurisdiction over the claim, construed the Petition as
a motion to file a second or successive motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h), and transferred the motion to the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for consideration.
See ECF Nos. 4 (op.), 5 (order).
the Court relied on established Third Circuit case law as
well as In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.
1997), and its progeny, and concluded that a sentencing
enhancement challenge is not cognizable in a § 2241
petition and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction over the
Petition. ECF No. 4 at 6-7. Because such a challenge to a
sentencing enhancement may only be brought pursuant to §
2255, the Court construed the Petition as arising pursuant to
§ 2255 and, in the interest of justice, transferred it
to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, for
consideration as a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Id. at 7. The motion was transferred to the Third
Circuit, where it was ultimately dismissed for failure to
prosecute. See No. 17-3698 (3d Cir.).
Motion for Relief from Final Judgment brought pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Petitioner argues that
the Court had jurisdiction to consider his sentencing
enhancement arguments pursuant to § 2241 and that the
Court should not have construed his Petition as a motion to
bring a second or successive § 2255 motion. See
ECF No. 6 at 3-4. In support of his argument, Petitioner
cites multiple District of New Jersey cases in which a
similar sentencing enhancement challenge was raised and
dismissed as without jurisdiction under § 2241.
See ECF No. 6. In each of these cases, the
petitioners have appealed the jurisdictional dismissal to the
Third Circuit. There, the Third Circuit has declined to rule
on the appeals summarily and has ordered briefing on the
jurisdictional issue. For example, in the appeal of Hill
v. United States, the Third Circuit sua sponte
appointed counsel for the petitioner-appellant and has issued
an order directing the parties to brief, inter alia,
(1) whether Hill's challenge to his career criminal
designation is cognizable in a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, see United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d 132,
160-61 (3d Cir. 20015), and (2) whether Hill had an earlier
opportunity to raise Mathis v. United States, 136
S.Ct. 2243 (2016), in his proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255,
see Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170,
179-80 (3d Cir. 2017).
No. 17-2797 (3d Cir.) (D.N.J. No. 17-cv-4949). The Third
Circuit has ordered the parties to address similar questions
in the other cases cited by Petitioner.
may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party
shows one of the following: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice. Johnson v. Diamond State Port
Corp., 50 Fed.Appx. 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues that the Court
had jurisdiction to hear his Mathis challenge in a
§ 2241 petition. In addition, Petitioner contests the
Court's decision to construe his § 2241 petition as
a request to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Neither argument represents an intervening change in the law,
new evidence, or an error of law or fact that would warrant
his first argument, Petitioner presents no authority that
would permit this Court jurisdiction over the Mathis
claim in his Petition brought pursuant to § 2241. The
cases cited by Petitioner held that jurisdiction was lacking
over sentencing enhancement claims brought pursuant to §
2241. Although they have been appealed to the Third Circuit,
the Third Circuit has not yet ruled that a district court has
jurisdiction over a sentencing enhancement claim like
Petitioner's Mathis claim in a § 2241
petition. As the existing authority in the Third Circuit
provides, such a claim must be brought pursuant to a §
2255 motion - not a § 2241 petition. See ECF
No. 4 at 6-7 (citing cases). Should the Third Circuit
determine in a future case, including those cases currently