FOY v. THE SUPER-RICH MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/7/2015. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE SUPER-RICH MEMBERS OF
:
THE ILLUMINATI, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
___________________________________:
JOAQUIN IRWIN FOY,

Civ. No. 15-1869 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Joaquin Irwin Foy, # 77218-079
F.M.C. Rochester
P.O. Box 4000
Rochester, MN 55903
Plaintiff Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Joaquin Irwin Foy, a prisoner confined at the
Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, files this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
While his Petition is difficult to decipher, ultimately,
Petitioner seeks release from custody.

He also requests

appointment of pro bono counsel and an evidentiary hearing.
(Pet. 32, ECF No. 1).
Petitioner does not provide a docket number for the
underlying criminal conviction or commitment he is challenging
by way of his Petition, nor does he indicate in what court he

was sentenced.

A review of this Court’s docket indicates that

Petitioner did not, and does not, have a case in the District of
New Jersey.

Rather, his underlying criminal cases proceeded in

the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and for the Western District of Missouri. See USA
v. Foy, Crim. No. 03-393 (ER) (E.D.Pa.); USA v. Foy, Crim. No.
03-857 (E.D.Pa.) (unassigned judge). 1
Because Petitioner is not attacking any conviction or
sentence, or the execution of any sentence, imposed by a United
States District Court in the District of New Jersey, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(a) (petitions filed under § 2255 must be brought in the
district court which imposed the sentence); See Meyers v.
Martinez, 402 F. App'x 735, 735 (3d Cir. 2010) (the proper venue

1

Petitioner has also filed at least two habeas petitions in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania: one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, see Foy v. United States of America, Civ. No. 10-3354
(E.D.Pa.) (proceedings not available on court’s PACER system);
and another pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Foy-El-Mahdi v.
United States Government, et al., Civ. No. 03-5584 (E.D.Pa. Oct.
7, 2003). Additionally, Petitioner has filed a civil rights
complaint in Pennsylvania, Foy v. Supt. of Philadelphia Prisons,
et al., Civ. No. 03-2270 (E.D.Pa. May 27, 2003) (dismissed as in
contravention with previous order of the court and as
frivolous). Another habeas petition filed by Petitioner (Civ.
No. 10-4052 (E.D.Pa.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was
transferred by the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the District Court for the Western District of
Missouri because it challenged a conviction and sentence imposed
by the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri. Order, USA v. Foy, Crim. No. 03-393 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 18,
2010) ECF No. 24.

for a § 2241 proceeding is the prisoner's district of
confinement) (internal citations omitted); see also Toney v.
Fishman, Civ. No. 12-2108, 2014 WL 1232321 (D.N.J. Mar. 25,
2014) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner is advised that

any future habeas applications should be filed in the
appropriate venue.
Petitioner is further advised that any future habeas
petition should name the proper Respondent in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 2242, and, if required, should include either the
filing fee or a complete application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

____s/ Noel L. Hillman____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: April 7, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey