MACKEY v. SHARTLE
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/14/2015. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANDREW S. MACKEY,
J. T. SHARTLE, Warden
Civil Action No. 14-571(NLH)
Andrew S. Mackey, #72284-053
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Petitioner Pro Se
HILLMAN, District Judge:
This matter is presently before the Court on a Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Andrew
S. Mackey (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging the revocation of bail and his 324-month sentence
imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the
Petition for lack of jurisdiction. 1
Petitioner also filed various motions to expedite his
Petition. (See Dkt. 3, 4, 6.) Because the Court is dismissing
As the Court is dismissing the Petition for lack of
jurisdiction, the Court will only recite the minimal facts
relevant to its dismissal.
Petitioner was convicted and
sentenced, on November 16, 2012, to a 324-month term of
imprisonment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, for various offenses of financial fraud. 2
(Criminal Docket, Dkt. 239.)
According to Petitioner, on the
same day that the jury returned a guilty verdict against him,
the Georgia court revoked his bail.
(Dkt. 1, pp. 16-17.)
Petitioner appealed his conviction, and the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the conviction on January 2, 2015.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on January 28, 2014,
while his direct appeal was pending.
In the Petition,
Petitioner challenges the revocation of bail, as well as his
the Petition, the Petitioner’s motions will be dismissed as
The criminal case is U.S. v. Mackey et al., No. 10-cr-310
(N.D. Ga.) (“Criminal Docket”).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that because
Petitioner has already been sentenced and his conviction
affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, his challenge to the
revocation of bail is, at this point, moot.
Therefore, the only
relevant part of his Petition is the challenge to his
Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides
in relevant part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to
a prisoner unless . . . He is in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Generally, a challenge to the validity of a federal
conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Davis v. U.S., 417 U.S. 333 (1974); Okereke v. U.S., 307
F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002).
Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2255
expressly prohibits a district court from entertaining a
challenge to a prisoner’s federal sentence under § 2241 unless
the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.”
U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290
F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d
A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective, authorizing
resort to § 2241, “only where the petitioner demonstrates that
some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255
proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of
his wrongful detention claim.”
Cradle, 290 F. 3d at 538.
is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to
use it, that is determinative.”
The provision exists to
ensure that petitioners have a fair opportunity to seek
collateral relief, not to enable them to evade the statute of
limitations under § 2255 or the successive petition bar.
Here, it is clear from the face of the Petition that
Petitioner is challenging his conviction – not the execution of
Thus, his challenges should be brought via a §
Petitioner has not demonstrated why § 2255 would
be inadequate or ineffective.
To begin, Petitioner has not
filed a § 2255 motion with the appropriate court; therefore he
is not prevented from filing such motion by the
second/successive bar under § 2255.
Furthermore, as noted
earlier, the issue regarding the revocation of bail is now moot.
See Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct.
2277, 2287 (2012) (“A case becomes moot only when it is
impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to
the prevailing party”) (internal quotations and citations
omitted); Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir.
2013) (“[I]f developments occur during the course of
adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the
outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant
the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot”)
As such, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the Petition.
The Court notes that Petitioner is free to file a § 2255
motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia to challenge his conviction/sentence if he so desires.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (“A prisoner . . . may move the court
which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the
sentence”); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249 (“With the enactment of
§ 2255, much of the collateral attack by federal prisoners has
been routed to the jurisdiction of the trial court”).
Petitioner should be mindful of the one-year statute of
limitations on the filing of a § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. §
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
January 14, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?