HADAWAY v. KIRBY
Filing
7
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/4/2018. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
ANTHONY HADAWAY,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 17-4713 (NLH)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
MARK KIRBY,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
APPEARANCE:
Anthony Hadaway, No. 63691-066
FCI Fairton
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Anthony
Hadaway's Motion for Relief from Judgment, requesting
reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order dismissing his
Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction.
ECF No. 6.
See
For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny
reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner initially filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge a sentencing
enhancement.
See ECF No. 1.
Petitioner argued that pursuant to
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), his
Pennsylvania state offenses no longer qualify him as a career
offender.
Id. at 3.
The Court reviewed the Petition pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, made
applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas
Rules, determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the claim,
construed the Petition as a motion to file a second or
successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), and
transferred the motion to the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit for consideration.
See ECF Nos. 4 (op.), 5 (order).
Specifically, the Court relied on established Third Circuit
case law as well as In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.
1997), and its progeny, and concluded that a sentencing
enhancement challenge is not cognizable in a § 2241 petition and
thus the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Petition.
at 6-7.
ECF No. 4
Because such a challenge to a sentencing enhancement
may only be brought pursuant to § 2255, the Court construed the
Petition as arising pursuant to § 2255 and, in the interest of
justice, transferred it to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1631, for consideration as a second or successive §
2255 motion.
Id. at 7.
The motion was transferred to the Third
Circuit, where it was ultimately dismissed for failure to
prosecute.
See No. 17-3698 (3d Cir.).
In the Motion for Relief from Final Judgment brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Petitioner
argues that the Court had jurisdiction to consider his
2
sentencing enhancement arguments pursuant to § 2241 and that the
Court should not have construed his Petition as a motion to
bring a second or successive § 2255 motion.
4.
See ECF No. 6 at 3-
In support of his argument, Petitioner cites multiple
District of New Jersey cases in which a similar sentencing
enhancement challenge was raised and dismissed as without
jurisdiction under § 2241.
See ECF No. 6.
In each of these
cases, the petitioners have appealed the jurisdictional
dismissal to the Third Circuit.
There, the Third Circuit has
declined to rule on the appeals summarily and has ordered
briefing on the jurisdictional issue.
For example, in the
appeal of Hill v. United States, the Third Circuit sua sponte
appointed counsel for the petitioner-appellant and has issued an
order directing the parties to brief, inter alia,
(1) whether Hill’s challenge to his career criminal
designation is cognizable in a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, see United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d 132,
160-61 (3d Cir. 20015), and (2) whether Hill had an
earlier opportunity to raise Mathis v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), in his proceeding under 28
U.S.C. 2255, see Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868
F.3d 170, 179-80 (3d Cir. 2017).
No. 17-2797 (3d Cir.) (D.N.J. No. 17-cv-4949).
The Third
Circuit has ordered the parties to address similar questions in
the other cases cited by Petitioner.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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)).
DISCUSSION
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues that
the Court had jurisdiction to hear his Mathis challenge in a §
2241 petition.
In addition, Petitioner contests the Court’s
decision to construe his § 2241 petition as a request to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion.
Neither argument represents
an intervening change in the law, new evidence, or an error of
law or fact that would warrant reconsideration.
As to his first argument, Petitioner presents no authority
that would permit this Court jurisdiction over the Mathis claim
in his Petition brought pursuant to § 2241.
The cases cited by
Petitioner held that jurisdiction was lacking over sentencing
enhancement claims brought pursuant to § 2241.
Although they
have been appealed to the Third Circuit, the Third Circuit has
not yet ruled that a district court has jurisdiction over a
4
sentencing enhancement claim like Petitioner’s Mathis claim in a
§ 2241 petition.
As the existing authority in the Third Circuit
provides, such a claim must be brought pursuant to a § 2255
motion — not a § 2241 petition.
cases).
See ECF No. 4 at 6-7 (citing
Should the Third Circuit determine in a future case,
including those cases currently on appeal and cited by
Petitioner in the instant Motion, that a district court has
jurisdiction to hear a sentencing enhancement challenge in a §
2241 petition, Petitioner may renew this Motion for Relief from
Judgment.
As to Petitioner’s contention that the Court should not
have construed his Petition as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, Petitioner presents no argument or authority that would
permit this Court to grant reconsideration.
As the Court stated
in its Opinion, “[w]henever a civil action is filed in a court
that lacks jurisdiction, ‘the court shall, if it is in the
interests of justice, transfer such action . . . to any other
such court in which the action . . . could have been brought at
the time it was filed.’”
Id. at 7 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1631).
Because a Mathis claim may be cognizable in a § 2255 motion, the
Court, in the interests of justice and in its discretion,
construed his Mathis claim as such and transferred it to the
Third Circuit for consideration.
That another court declined to
5
exercise such discretion and transfer a sentencing enhancement
claim is not grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Relief from
Judgment will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
Dated: December 4, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
6
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?