WALTERS v. KIRBY
Filing
5
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/30/2016. (TH, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROHAN WALTERS,
Petitioner,
v.
MARK KIRBY,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 16-1480(RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration of this Court’s opinion and order dismissing
his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Mot. for Reconsideration,
ECF No. 4.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny
reconsideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner
is
a
federal
inmate
confined
at
the
Federal
Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey. (Pet., ECF No.
1.) In his petition, Petitioner asserted that “according to [the]
Supreme Court ruling in Burrage v. United States[,] 571 U.S. 134
(2014), that interpreted the Federal Statute 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
[Petitioner] is actually innocent of conviction on Sentence based
on drug finding by Judge an[d] not jury that increased statutory
minimum in violation of 841(b)(1)(c).” (Pet., ¶6.)
This Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction,
explaining:
The savings clause in § 2255(e) does not allow
a Petitioner to bring a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 to raise the argument that “the
‘death results’ penalty enhancement [of §
841(b)(1)(c)] is an element that must be
submitted to the jury and found beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Upshaw, 2016 WL 611476, at
*2 (the holdings in Alleyne v. United States,
133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) and Burrage, 134 S.Ct.
at 887 are extensions of Apprendi, 530 U.S.
466 (2000), and § 2241 petitions may not be
used to raise sentencing challenges under
these cases).
(Opinion, ECF No. 2 at 5; Order, ECF No. 3.) Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration expresses his disagreement with the Court’s
holding that the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not permit
him to challenge a sentencing enhancement in a § 2241 petition.
II.
DISCUSSION
A court may grant a motion for reconsideration
if the moving party shows one of the
following: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court
issued its order; or (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.
Johnson v. Diamond State Port Corp., 50 F. App’x 554, 560 (3d Cir.
2002) (quoting Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999). Petitioner’s motion suggests an error of law.
2
However, this Court relied on a Third Circuit Court of Appeals
case in finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage does
not fall within the parameters of the Dorsainvil exception, which
allows a prisoner to bring such a claim in a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has not pointed to any intervening change
in controlling law that would change the result of this Court’s
holding
that
it
lacks
jurisdiction
over
Petitioner’s
§
2241
petition.
III. CONCLUSION
In the accompanying Order filed herewith, the Court will deny
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Dated:
June 30, 2016
s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
3
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?