Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Kearse v. Records Supervisor

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

December 21, 2018


          James Maurice Kearse, No. 33223-057 FCI - Fort Dix Inmate Mail/Parcels East: P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, N.J. 08640 Petitioner Pro se


          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner James Maurice Kearse, a prisoner presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) 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. See 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 set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 26, 2016, a federal criminal complaint was lodged against Petitioner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for possession with the intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. No. 3:16-cr-41, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Va.) (originally filed as No. 3:16-mj-56). Also on that day, a warrant was issued for Petitioner's arrest. Id., ECF No. 2. A few days later, on March 4, 2016, Petitioner was arrested on that warrant in High Point, North Carolina, within the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. See No. 1:16-mj-45 (M.D. N.C. ). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, an initial appearance was held in the Middle District of North Carolina, in which Petitioner was appointed counsel, waived his right to a preliminary or detention hearing in his district of arrest with the right to proceed to those hearings in the prosecuting district, and was committed to the Eastern District of Virginia. Id., ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.

         After transport to the Eastern District of Virginia, an indictment was returned against Petitioner for possession with intent to distribute on March 16, 2016. No. 3:16-cr-41, ECF No. 5 (E.D. Va.). A few days later, on March 23, 2016, Petitioner had an initial appearance in the Eastern District of Virginia on the indictment, where he was appointed local counsel and ordered detained pending a detention hearing. Id., ECF Nos. 7 (minute entry), 8 (CJA appointment), 9 (detention order). Petitioner then waived his right to a detention hearing before one could be held. Id., ECF No. 11. A few months later, Petitioner decided to plead guilty, and the Court held a change of plea hearing in which it accepted Petitioner's guilty plea on Count 1 of the indictment. Id., ECF Nos. 14 (minute entry), 15 (Rule 11 waiver), 17 (plea agreement). The plea agreement contained a waiver of the right to directly appeal the conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum. Id., ECF No. 17 at 4. It did not contain a collateral attack waiver.

         After Petitioner entered a plea of guilty, the Court noticed its intent to vary or depart upwardly from the otherwise applicable guideline range based on Petitioner's criminal history, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Id., ECF No. 26. Both parties provided sentencing memoranda on this and other issues. Id., ECF Nos. 27, 28. At the sentencing held on August 26, 2016, the Court granted its sua sponte upward variance, increased Petitioner's criminal history category from a III to a IV, and sentenced Petitioner to seventy-one (71) months imprisonment followed by three (3) years of supervised release. See id., ECF Nos. 29 (minute entry), 30 (judgment of conviction). Petitioner did not file an appeal. He also did not file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 16, 2018. No. 18-cv-14191, ECF No. 1 (D.N.J.). In the Petition, Petitioner provides ample citation of historical authority regarding the remedy of habeas corpus. Relevant to his situation, however, Petitioner provides as follows:

Your aggrieved Citizen complainant and petitioner herein has no other remedy save exercise of the citizen's Privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus for reason respondent a citizen and/or staff person having his principal place of employment within the State of New Jersey purports to use without restraint nor accountability to the Federal Constitution's 14th and 13th Amendments guarantee of liberty and freedom unlawful restraint and subjugation to involuntary servitude commerce and federal laws making human trafficking: transporting of citizens from one state to another for forced servitude in debt collection and law enforcement for Others' debts and governments' security, is executed unliterally without notice nor opportunity to be heard in opposition provide aggrieved citizen. No. laws nor judicial process is claimed nor purported to even be followed by respondent for impressment of the restraint of aggrieved citizen's liberty.
[T]his Court as a Federal District Court has original jurisdiction for cognization of all injuries to Citizens of The United States' personal civil right of liberty within a State that arises from State acts beyond the Federal limits that is unconstitutional on its face as a Case and/or Controversy. In the instant civil rights action, the respondent a citizen of and/or a Staff employee whose principal office of business in, the State of New Jersey, purports a Power to lawfully use in private the full coercive police Powers of the State of New Jersey to restraint out of State citizen complainant and petitioner; 14th and 13th Amendments' guaranteed federal civil right of liberty at respondent's arbitrary pleasure personal enrichment and private profits derived from permanently incarcerating out of State citizens at “Joint Based Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst.” Id. at 6-7. Petitioner goes on to state that he is and has always been a citizen of the State of North Carolina, and is not, nor has ever been a resident of or domiciled in the State of New Jersey. Id. at 8. He states that he has “not voluntarily traveled to the State of New Jersey, ” “was brought here in chains and manacles of iron in unmarked Vehicles driven by uniformless Strangers, ” and is not, nor has he ever been, “in receipt of service of process nor any judicial process giving notice of the Power and nature of [his] captivity within the State of New Jersey.” Id. at 8. From these statements, it appears that Petitioner may be challenging his physical transfer after his conviction in the Eastern District of Virginia to a federal prison in New Jersey for the service of his sentence or the legality of his confinement in general. In addition, Petitioner references an “isolation cell, ” which the Court construes to be a challenge to his housing placement at FCI Fort Dix. Id. at 6.

         As for his relief, Petitioner requests that the writ be issued and that the laws of the State of North Carolina, which he describes have having been “stripped by the federal government, ” be lawfully enforced within the State of New Jersey. Id. at 13.



         Title 28, section 2243 of the U.S. Code, provides in ...

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.