BRILEY v. ORTIZ
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/26/17. (jbk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAY BONANZA BRILEY,
MR. ORTIZ, Warden,
FCI Fort Dix,
Civ. Action No. 17-6883 (RMB)
BUMB, District Judge
(“Briley”), presently incarcerated in FCI Fort Dix, in Fort Dix,
New Jersey, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, seeking immediately release and vacation of his
sentence for supervised release and restitution.
(Pet., ECF No.
Petitioner has established his financial eligibility for
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
through Rule 1, scope of the rules, provides, in relevant part:
If 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 dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the
respondent to file an answer, motion, or
other response within a fixed time, or to
take other action the judge may order.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the
This is Briley’s third attempt to gain early release based
on an alleged error in his Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR.”)
Civil Action 17-1750(RMB), Petitioner alleged his PSR contained
inaccurate medical conclusions, preventing him from removing a
Public Safety Factor from his prison records and obtaining a
Action No. 17-1750(RMB) (“Action 1750”) (D.N.J.) (Pet., ECF No.
This Court dismissed Action 1750 because Petitioner did
not state a cognizable Due Process Claim .
(Id., Opinion, ECF
In Action 3535, Petitioner sought immediate release to home
confinement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
(Briley v. Ortiz,
Civ. Action No. 17-3535(RMB) (“Action 3535”) (D.N.J.) (Pet., ECF
The Court dismissed Action 3535 because the only relief
habeas relief available pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3821(b) is an
order directing the BOP to consider whether Briley should be
transferred pursuant to § 3621(b).
facts he alleged in Action 1750, that his probation officer
failed to correct errors in his PSR:
Plaintiff request a Order from this Court to
Warden Ortiz that the Plaintiff is to be
immediately released from incarceration at
Ft. Dix, FCI, to remove his three years of
Plaintiff’s USPO falsely stated erroneous
claims to justify the Plaintiff’s long term
incarceration, restitution, and deprivation
of serving his time at a Camp.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, ¶16.)
corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless— He is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
However, the presumptive means for a federal
prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence
is through a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
120 (3d Cir. 2002).
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117,
A petitioner can resort to § 2241 for
relief only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249–51 (3d Cir.1997). A § 2255 motion
is not “inadequate or ineffective” simply because the petitioner
cannot meet the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255.
ineffective solely because the sentencing court denied relief.
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d
Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
By challenging information in his PSR that was used to
sentence him, and seeking relief in the form of vacation of his
release, Briley is challenging the validity of his conviction or
motion in his sentencing court.
See U.S. v. Briley, 12cr482
(E.D. Va. May 26, 2016) (ECF No. 217) (dismissing Rule 60(b)
motion without prejudice to Briley’s right to move the Fourth
Circuit for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion raising
claim that exculpatory medical evidence was withheld from him).
Briley must now get permission from the 4th Circuit Court
of Appeals before he can bring a second or successive § 2255
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“[a] second or successive
motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel
of the appropriate court of appeals . . .”)
use § 2241 to get around the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255.
(finding the petitioner’s unsuccessful pursuit of relief under §
2255, and the fact that he was barred from filing a successive §
2255 motion, did not establish the inadequacy of relief § 2255.)
Therefore, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim
under § 2241.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court dismisses the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
lack of jurisdiction.
An appropriate Order follows.
September 26, 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?