MCRAE v. ORTIZ
MEMORANDUM, OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/22/17. (jbk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WARDEN DAVID ORTIZ,
Civ. Action No. 17-2321 (NLH)
IT APPEARING THAT:
Petitioner Tivarus McRae (“Petitioner”) has filed a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 before this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner alleges that he was “unlawfully and/or
illegally placed in F.C.I. Estill on 12.15.1998 by United States
District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina- Western
Division, case number 5:98-CR-00037-012.5.”
(Pet. ¶ 3.)
He further alleges that his imprisonment is “unlawful
and/or illegal in violation of the laws and Constitution for
[sic] the United States because: Petitioner cannot be
imprison[ed] for violating any of the crime(s) and/or offense(s)
stated in case number 5:98:CR-00037-012 because the United
States did not have jurisdiction over the land(s) of where the
alleged crime occurred pursuant to Title 40 U.S.C. Section 3112
(Pet. ¶ 6.)
Petitioner further alleges that his imprisonment is “in
violation of the Tenth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Fifth
Amendment Due Process; Fourth Amendment “Unlawful Seizure”;
Eighth Amendment “Cruel and Unusual Punishment; Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 7/(3), 5, 13(a); Title 40 U.S.C. Section 3112(b),
Article 1, Section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Const; Article 4,
Section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Const.”
Pursuant to Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
petition must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to
the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground….”
Here, Petitioner has failed to specify his grounds for relief and
state the facts supporting said grounds.
As such, the Court will
require Petitioner to submit an amended petition which complies
with Rule 2(c).
Should Petitioner decide to submit an amended petition,
the Court offers the following guidance.
To the extent Petitioner
is challenging the validity of his sentence, “motions pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal
prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are
allegedly in violation of the Constitution.”
States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002).
Okereke v. United
Motions pursuant to §
2255 are filed with the court that imposed the sentence.
Therefore, if Petitioner wishes to challenge his
conviction or sentence as imposed, he must file a § 2255 motion
To the extent Petitioner is challenging the execution
of a federal sentence, Section 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction
to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging
not the validity but the execution of his sentence.”
Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001).
Should he choose to
file an amended Section 2241 petition challenging the execution
of his sentence, because Petitioner is confined at Fort Dix,
said petition would be properly before this Court.
In light of the foregoing, the Court will
administratively terminate this matter. 1
If Petitioner is
challenging the validity of sentence or conviction, he must file
a Section 2255 petition before the district court where he was
If Petitioner is challenging the execution of his
Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for
purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is reopened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is not
subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was originally
submitted timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
(prisoner mailbox rule); Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases and
explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and
can re-open, administratively closed cases).
sentence, and he wishes to re-open the instant matter, he must
submit an amended petition which clearly outlines his grounds
for relief and the facts supporting said grounds.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: May 22, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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?