United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. Kugler United States District Judge.
Andrew Charles Jackson is a federal prisoner currently
incarcerated at FCI Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey. He is
proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the
reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the Petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
Court will construe the factual allegations in the Petition
as true for the purpose of this Opinion. In June of 2000, a
Grand Jury indicted Petitioner on one count of engaging in a
continuing criminal enterprise, one count of killing in
furtherance of a criminal enterprise, one count of carrying a
firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and four counts of
distributing crack cocaine. In 2002, a jury found Petitioner
guilty on all counts, and the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia sentenced
Petitioner to life in prison and five years.
to Petitioner, the court had improperly applied the 2001
Sentencing Guidelines instead of the 1987 Sentencing
Guidelines, which were in effect at the time of his offenses.
Had the court used the 1987 Guidelines, Petitioner contends
that he would have had a sentencing range of 210 to 262
months imprisonment rather than a minimum sentence of life in
prison. Additionally, the sentencing court enhanced
Petitioner's sentence based on the quantity of drugs and
degree of murder involved in his offenses, without submitting
those issues to a jury. It appears that Petitioner's
trial counsel did not contest any of these issues.
not entirely clear what transpired next, but it appears that
the Fourth Circuit denied his direct appeal, United
States v. West, 90 Fed.Appx. 683 (4th Cir. 2004), and
the Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari.
Jackson v. United States, 543 U.S. 888 (2004).
Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, and a district court denied that Petition on the
merits. Jackson v. United States, No. 05-110, 2008
WL 2230718, at *1 (N.D. W.Va. May 29, 2008). The Fourth
Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, United
States v. Jackson, 393 Fed.Appx. 129 (4th Cir. 2010),
and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Jackson v.
United States, 562 U.S. 1278 (2011).
then filed a second § 2255 petition, and a district
court denied that petition as untimely and for a lack of
jurisdiction as second or successive. Jackson v. United
States, No. 3:00-CR-6-1, 2013 WL 1849524, at *1 (N.D.
W.Va. Apr. 30, 2013). The Fourth Circuit again denied a
certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court denied
certiorari. United States v. Jackson, 703 Fed.Appx.
197 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. dismissed, 138 S.Ct. 2664
then filed the instant Petition, contending: (1) that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) that he
received sentencing enhancements in violation of Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and (3) that his
sentence violated the Constitution's Ex Post
Facto Clause. See generally U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 9, cl. 3.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
district courts have a pre-service duty under Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, which is applicable to § 2241 petitions
pursuant to Rule 1(b), to screen and summarily dismiss a
habeas petition prior to any answer or other pleading when
the petition “appears legally insufficient on its
face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856
(1994); see also United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d
430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that courts may dismiss
petitions where “none of the grounds alleged in the
petition would entitle [the petitioner] to relief).
challenges his conviction and sentence in this 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 federal habeas action. Generally, a person must
bring a challenge to the validity of a federal conviction or
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jackman v.
Shartle, 535 Fed.Appx. 87, 88-89 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.
2002)). This is generally true because § 2255 prohibits
a district court from entertaining a challenge to a
prisoner's federal sentence through § 2241 unless
the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Indeed, § 2255(e) states that:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such a
court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the
remedy by the motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.
§ 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective,
” which permits a petitioner to resort to a § 2241
petition, “only where the petitioner demonstrates that
some limitation or procedure would prevent a § 2255
proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication
of his wrongful detention claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex
rel. Miner,290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). However,
§ 2255 “is not inadequate or ineffective merely
because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the
one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the
petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping
requirements of . . . § 2255.” Id. at
539. “It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the
personal inability to use it, that is determinative.”
Id. at 538. “The provision ...