United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MOSES, PETITIONER PRO SE
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE JUDGE
Moses, a/k/a/ Roy Moses, a federal prisoner confined at FCI
Fort Dix, New Jersey, has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Docket
Entry 1]. The only claim over which this Court has §
2241 jurisdiction is Petitioner's challenge to the Bureau
of Prisons' (``BOP") calculation of his custody
classification score (``Ground Two"). Therefore, the
Court will sever the petition, retaining jurisdiction over
Ground Two, and return the remainder of the petition to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
states that he was arrested in Pennsylvania on November 11,
2011 and charged with possession with intent to manufacture
or deliver a controlled substance. [Docket Entry 1 at 10]. He
was released on electronic monitoring after posting bail on
December 27, 2011. [Id.] . He was then arrested and
charged via federal indictment in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 13,
2014 with two counts of being a convicted felon in possession
of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Id.] .
See also United States v. Moses, No. 14-cr-0232
(E.D. Pa.). A jury convicted Petitioner of both counts in
October 2014. [Docket Entry 1 ¶ 4].
to the petition, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for trial on his state
charges in Philadelphia County on December 8, 2014, before he
was sentenced in federal court. [Id. at 10].
However, he was returned to the federal detention center that
same day without going to trial on his state charges.
[Id.] . He was transferred back to Philadelphia
County's custody on April 27, 2015 for trial.
[Id. at 11]. On May 1, 2015, Petitioner was
convicted of possession and paraphernalia charges in the
Court of Common Pleas. [Id.]; Commonwealth v. Roy
Moses, CP-51-CR-0001275-2012 (C.P. Phila. Cty., May 1,
2015). On May 4, 2015, he was transferred back to FDC
Philadelphia to await sentencing on his federal charges.
[Docket Entry 1 at 11]. He was sentenced to 102 months
imprisonment on May 12, 2015. [Id.]; Moses, No.
14-cr-0232 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2015). On August 19, 2015,
Petitioner was sentenced via videoconferencing to 6 to 12
years on his Pennsylvania charges, to be served consecutively
to his federal charges. [Docket Entry 1 at 11] . ``Petitioner
was then given a 3 point detainer, and 3 points for severity
of the state offense, which is unrelated to his federal
charges." [Id.]. He was transferred to
Philadelphia County again on February 19, 2016,
"however, petitioner never requested any IAD [Interstate
Agreement on Detainers] action or have any new charges
pending against him to warrant a transfer under the IADA
which formed the basis of the detainer writ as the
filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 12, 2018.
[Docket Entry 1]. That court transferred the petition to this
district for review as Petitioner is presently confined in
FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey. [Docket Entry 5]. Petitioner asks
the Court to vacate his federal and state convictions and to
quash the detainer against him due to the alleged violations
of the anti-shuttling provisions of the Interstate Agreement
on Detainers. He also alleges the "shuttling"
deprived him of his medical care, and that the BOP calculated
his custody score incorrectly.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
brings this petition as a pro se litigant. The Court has an
obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and to hold
them to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 655
F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept. 19,
2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting
submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of
tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney Gen., 878 F.2d 714,
721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley,
414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 399
U.S. 912 (1970).
a federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers
v. Ryan, 113 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert,
denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the petition to
this Court for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
because Petitioner is currently incarcerated in FCI Fort Dix,
New Jersey. [Docket Entry 5] .
he proper respondent to a habeas petition is `the person who
has custody over the petitioner.'" Rumsfeld v.
Padilla,542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2242); see also Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) . "Generally, `the
default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of
the facility where the prisoner is being held.' However,
`when a federal prisoner challenges his future confinement by
challenging a state detainer, the federal warden is not
"the person who [holds] him in what [is] alleged to be
unlawful custody."'" Brown v. Warden of
LSCI Allenwood, No. 1:19-CV-534, 2019 WL 2160401, at *l
(M.D. Pa. May 17, 2019) (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S.
at 435; Graham v. Brooks,342 F.Supp.2d 256, 261 (D.
Del. 2004)) (alteration in original). ``In such circumstances
and for the purpose of the § 2241 petition only, the
petitioner is deemed to be in custody of the ...