United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Maurice Kearse, No. 33223-057 FCI - Fort Dix Inmate
Mail/Parcels East: P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, N.J. 08640
Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28, section 2243 of the U.S. Code, provides in ...