VASQUEZ v. WARDEN F.C.I. FAIRTON et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, The Clerk shall reopen this matter; ORDERED that the amended petition 3 is dismissed, etc.; ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the file on this matter; ORDERED that the Court withdraws its jurisdiction over this action. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/30/2013. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN F.C.I. FAIRTON et al.,:
:
Respondents. :
:
THOMAS VASQUEZ,

Civil Action No. 12-2528 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

On April 30, 2012, Petitioner, then being a federal inmate,
initiated this § 2241 proceeding by submitting a petition
seeking habeas corpus relief.

See Docket Entry No. 1.

On

May 8, 2012, he submitted the applicable filing fee of
$5.00.
2.

See Docket Entry No. 2.

His petition seemingly asserted that, at a certain point in
time, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”)
lodged a detainer against him on the basis of his preexisting conviction, and the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
declined his request to have him serve the end period of his
then-served federal sentence in a community correctional
center (“CCC”).

3.

See Docket Entry No. 1.

In light of the ambiguity of Petitioner’s pleading and his
statements suggesting that his challenges were not exhausted
administratively, this Court directed him to file an amended
petition, see Docket Entry No. 2, and Petitioner complied,

asserting that all exhaustion efforts would be futile,
challenging his federal conviction and seeking habeas relief
in the form of an order directing his placement in a CCC.
See Docket Entry No. 3.
4.

To the extent Petitioner asserted futility of exhaustion,
his position are without merit, since the BOP was best
positioned to address his claims and to create the record
necessary for resolution of his CCC-based challenge.

See

Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir.
1996); see also Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349, 358 &
n.16 (1st Cir. 1999); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953,
953-54 (6th Cir. 1981) (per curiam); accord Gambino v.
Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 171 (3d Cir. 1998); cf. Fazzini v.
N.E. Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 236 (6th Cir. 2006)
(“[A] habeas petitioner’s failure to complete the
administrative remedy process may be excused where his
failure is due to the administrator, rather than the
petitioner”).

To the extent Petitioner challenged his

federal conviction, this Court was and is without § 2241
jurisdiction to address such a challenge, since a motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is the
presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the
validity of a conviction or sentence.

Page 2 of

4

See Okereke v. United

States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); accord Cradle v.
Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002).
5.

To the extent Petitioner challenged denial of transfer to a
CCC, that claim has been rendered moot after his release
from confinement.

See http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinder

Servlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType
=IRN&IDNumber=44474-066&x=71&y=16 (indicating that
Petitioner was released from BOP custody on December 7,
2012); see also Cnty. of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273
F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001) (“The mootness doctrine is
centrally concerned with the court's ability to grant
effective relief”).
IT IS, therefore, on this 30th day of May 2013,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter by making a
new and separate entry on the docket reading, “CIVIL CASE
REOPENED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the amended petition, Docket Entry No. 3, is
dismissed.

Such dismissal is with prejudice as to Petitioner’s

Section 2241 challenge,1 but it is without prejudice to raising
his Section 2255 challenges, if any, by means of an appropriate

1

While Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his § 2241 challenge
administratively warranted dismissal without prejudice, his
release from confinement conclusively mooted his § 2241
challenge, thus warranting a prejudicial dismissal.
Page 3 of

4

motion filed with his federal court of conviction;2 and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the file on this matter
by making a new and separate entry on the docket reading “CIVIL
CASE TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court withdraws its jurisdiction over this
action; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

2

This Court expresses no opinion as to substantive validity
or invalidity, or procedural propriety or impropriety of
Petitioner’s § 2255 application, if such is filed.
Page 4 of

4