United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Telfair, Petitioner pro se
B. Simandle, U.S. District Judge.
Telfair, 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]. He also
moves for bail. [Docket Entry 2]. For the reasons expressed
below, this Court will dismiss the petition for lack of
February 2010, a jury convicted Petitioner of conspiracy to
distribute and possession with intent to distribute one
kilogram or more of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. United States v.
Telfair, No. 08-cr-0757 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2011). He was
sentenced to 240 months imprisonment in November 2011.
See United States v. Telfair, 507 Fed.Appx. 164, 169
(3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 866 (2013).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. Id.
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in October 2013. The
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J., denied the motion on
February 17, 2016, except for Petitioner's
Miranda claim which was reserved pending an
evidentiary hearing. Telfair v. United States, No.
13-6585 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2016). The Miranda claim
was denied on September 25, 2017. Order, Telfair,
No. 13-6585 (Sept. 25, 2017 Docket Entry 59). The Third
Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Telfair v.
United States of America, No. 17-3379 (3d Cir. June 19,
2018), cert. denied, No. 18-7840 (U.S. Mar. 18,
2019). Petitioner has filed a variety of motions and
petitions seeking to overturn his conviction since the denial
of his § 2255 motion.
filed the instant petition challenging the validity of his
conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 8, 2019.
[Docket Entry 1]. He states he “takes umbrage at his
unconstitutional conspiracy-conviction and sentence”
and asserts “the underlying ‘conduct' by
which Petitioner's conspiracy-conviction is premised upon
does not comport with the necessary threshold
‘statutory-element' requirements under 21 U.S.C.
§ 846.” [Docket Entry 1-1 at 2]. Petitioner
invokes the savings clause to challenge his conviction,
arguing he is actually innocent of the offense after the
Supreme Court's decision in Rosemond v. United
States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014). [Id. at 17].
matter is now ripe for disposition.
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, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition
of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but
the execution of his sentence.” Coady v.
Vaughn,251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). A challenge to
the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jackman v.
Shartle,535 Fed.Appx. 87, 88 (3d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). “[Section] 2255 expressly
prohibits a district court from considering a challenge to a
prisoner's federal sentence under § 2241 unless the
remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective
to test the ...