WYATT v. WARDEN FCI FORT DIX
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/10/2017. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RODNEY L. WYATT, Jr.,
WARDEN FCI FORT DIX,
Civ. No. 17-1335 (RMB)
BUMB, United States District Judge
Petitioner Rodney L. Wyatt, Jr., a prisoner confined in FCI
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 27, 2017.
convictions do not qualify him as a career offender, and he
(Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pet. for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petr’s Mem.”) ECF No. 1-1
Petitioner asserts that jurisdiction is proper under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 because a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(Id. at 1.)
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, applicable to § 2241
under Rule 1, the scope of the rules, a district judge must
promptly examine a petition, and “[i]f it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
conviction and sentencing on September 14, 2009, in the United
conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of a substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base and 500 grams of
more of cocaine hydrochloride, did not file a direct appeal.
U.S. v. Wyatt, 3:09CR133, 2015 WL 2169515, at *1 (E.D. Va. May
8, 2015). Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 29,
The court dismissed the § 2255 motion because it was
barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Id. at *2.
Petitioner filed a second § 2255 motion in the District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on or about June 27,
United States v. Wyatt, 3:09CR133, 2016 WL 3912033, at *1
The court noted that on July 7, 2016,
(E.D. Va. July 19, 2016).
Petitioner to file a successive § 2255 motion.
the court denied the § 2255 motion for want of jurisdiction.
Petitioner filed a third § 2255 motion on October 6, 2016,
and it was denied the same day.
(Petr’s Mem., ECF No. 1-1 at
In the Third Circuit, the exception to the general rule that
a challenge to a conviction or sentence must be brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court has only been applied
prisoner with no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction
for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law could
negate with retroactive application.” Okereke v. U.S., 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245,
251 (3d Cir. 1997)). The Third Circuit has not extended this
exception to include situations where a prisoner is challenging
Id. (refusing to extend Dorsainvil exception
Lewisburg USP, Nos. 15-3555, 15-3570, 2016 WL 1127869, at *2 (3d
Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) (refusing to extend Dorsainvil exception to
sentencing challenge under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct.
Here, Petitioner challenges the basis for his sentencing
enhancement under the career offender guidelines, pursuant to
United States v. Mathis, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016).
ECF No. 1-1 at 15-17.)
This Court lacks jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, because Petitioner was not convicted for conduct
that the Supreme Court later deemed not to be criminal.
Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (distinguishing between changes in law
that potentially made conduct non-criminal from changes in the
law that deal only with sentencing).
Petitioner has already brought multiple motions to vacate,
Therefore, he must seek permission from the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals to bring a second or successive petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h). This Court will construe the present petition
Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.1
28 U.S.C. § 1631 provides in relevant part:
[w]henever a civil action is filed in a
court . . . and that court finds that there
An appropriate Order follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb__________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: April 10, 2017
is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall,
if it is in the interest of justice,
transfer such action or appeal to any other
such court in which the action or appeal
could have been brought at the time it was
filed . . .
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?