NEWMAN v. KIRBY
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/19/17. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 17-4653 (RMB)
BUMB, United States District Judge
On June 26, 2017, Petitioner, a prisoner confined in FCI
Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner contends that his prior convictions do not qualify
him as a career offender, and he seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
(Id. at 2.)
Petitioner asserts that jurisdiction is proper
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he is actually innocent of the
past crimes of conviction used to enhance his sentence under the
ACCA; thus, the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to provide relief.
(Id. at 10.)
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 lacks
jurisdiction under § 2241.
This is Petitioner’s second habeas petition in this Court
challenging his 2003 federal sentence under the Armed Career
On October 9, 2003, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Petitioner was convicted as a felon in possession,
charges. United States v. Newman, Crim. Action No. 02–0539(JCJ)
After his direct appeal, Petitioner filed
a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, appealing his sentence for the
(1) his sentence was unreasonable under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125
S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) because
the District Court did not sufficiently
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a); (2) the District Court erred in
using his three prior burglary and three
Available at www.PACER.gov
sentence because those convictions had not
been proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt; and (3) the government lacked the
sufficient proof required under Shepard v.
United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254,
161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) to establish that his
Pennsylvania's non-generic burglary statute
brought him within the ambit of the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
U.S. v. Newman, 186 F. App’x 264, 2006 WL 1662930 (3rd Cir.
The Third Circuit affirmed Petitioner’s sentence.
first petition under § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction, stating:
Here, Petitioner challenged his sentence
enhancement during his re-sentencing and on
direct appeal from that re-sentencing, and
his challenges were expressly dismissed by
his sentencing court and the Court of
Appeals with an express reminder that he had
stipulated that he was an armed career
4388601, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2014).
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 “Apprendi-based arguments.”)
enhancement under the ACCA, pursuant to Mathis v. United States,
136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016).
(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.)
lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because Petitioner
conduct non-criminal from changes in the law that deal only with
This Court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition.
Petitioner has already brought a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing
Circuit Court of Appeals if he wishes to bring his present claim
in a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
An appropriate Order follows.
Dated: July 19, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb__________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?