FARRELL v. WARDEN
Filing
9
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/22/2021. (rss, n.m.)
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 67
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
SEAN FARRELL,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 20-4414 (NLH)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
WARDEN FCI FAIRTON,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Sean Farrell
58966-066
Fairton
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Petitioner Pro se
John Andrew Ruymann, Chief, Civil Division
John T. Stinson, Jr., AUSA
Office of the U.S. Attorney
402 East State St.
Suite 420
Trenton, NJ 08608
Counsel for Respondent
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Sean Farrell, 1 a prisoner presently confined at
FCI Fairton, New Jersey, filed this petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his conviction is
1
Petitioner’s criminal cases spell his surname both as “Farrell”
and “Ferrell.” The Court will use the spelling on the submitted
petition.
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 68
invalid due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United
States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
ECF No. 1.
Respondent United
States filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Petition
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner opposes the motion.
ECF No. 7.
ECF No. 6.
For the reasons that
follow, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
The United States shall be ordered to file a full
answer.
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2004, Petitioner was indicted for being a
convicted felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1); and being a convicted felon in possession of
ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
United States v. Farrell,
No. 2:04-cr-00575 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2004) (ECF No. 1). 2
He
pled guilty on April 9, 2007 to possession of a firearm, and the
court dismissed the ammunition charge.
Id. (ECF No. 60).
The
trial court sentenced Petitioner to 120 months imprisonment.
Id. (July 12, 2007) (ECF No. 71).
He was later sentenced to a
consecutive term of 240 months imprisonment after a jury found
him guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and
other charges.
United States v. Ferrell, No. 2:04-cr-00730
(E.D. Pa. July 12, 2007) (ECF No. 110).
2
The United States Court
The Court takes judicial notice of the public dockets filed in
Petitioner’s criminal cases.
2
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 69
of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and
sentences.
United States v. Ferrell, Nos. 07-2974 & 07-2980 (3d
Cir. Sept. 29, 2008).
Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on September 22, 2009.
Farrell, No. 2:04-cr-00575 (ECF No. 76).
The sentencing court
denied the motion, (Apr. 21, 2010) (ECF No. 86), and the Third
Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, United States v.
Ferrell, No. 10-2268 (3d Cir. Nov. 5, 2010).
On January 27,
2020, Petitioner filed another motion under § 2255 claiming a
right to relief under the recent Supreme Court decision in
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
2:04-cr-00575 (ECF No. 97).
Farrell, No.
The sentencing court transferred
the motion to the Third Circuit to determine whether Petitioner
could proceed on a second or successive § 2255.
2020) (ECF No. 98).
Id. (Feb. 4,
The Third Circuit denied permission to file
a second or successive § 2255 motion under Rehaif because “that
case did not announce a new rule of constitutional law.”
Id.
(Mar. 12, 2020) (ECF No. 99).
Petitioner filed this petition under § 2241 on April 17,
2020.
ECF No. 1.
The Court ordered Respondent to answer, ECF
No. 4, and the United States filed the instant motion to
dismiss, ECF No. 6.
Petitioner opposes the motion.
3
ECF No. 7.
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 70
Petitioner argues that his § 922 conviction is invalid
after Rehaif: “At the time of the above sentencing the
Government, the Court, relied on the presumption of the above
922(g) text, as far as showing the Petitioner’s conduct, the
Petitioner knew he possessed a firearm, but what the Government,
the Court and Petitioner did not know that the Petitioner knew
that he was aware of his status, as a person barred at the time
of his arrest/sentence that he was not allowed to possess a
firearm.”
ECF No. 1 at 8.
The United States argues this Court
lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 or, in the alternative, the
Petitioner cannot make a showing of actual innocence under §
2241.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
Title 28, Section 2243 of the United States Code provides
in relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application
for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the
writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless
it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
4
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 71
(1972).
A pro se habeas petition must be construed liberally.
See Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002).
B.
Analysis
Generally, a challenge to the validity of a federal
conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Jackman v. Shartle, 535 F. App’x 87, 88 (3d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d
Cir. 2002)).
“[Section] 2255 expressly prohibits a district
court from considering a challenge to a prisoner’s federal
sentence under § 2241 unless the remedy under § 2255 is
‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.’”
Snyder v. Dix, 588 F. App’x 205, 206 (3d Cir.
2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); see also In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997).
“In Dorsainvil, after the petitioner already had filed an
unsuccessful § 2255 motion, the United States Supreme Court
interpreted his statute of conviction in Bailey v. United
States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), in a way that rendered his conduct
non-criminal.”
Boatwright v. Warden Fairton FCI, 742 F. App’x
701, 702 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
The Third Circuit
concluded that Dorsainvil was in “an unusual situation because
Bailey was not yet decided at the time of his first § 2255
motion.”
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52.
“The petitioner could
not seek relief in another § 2255 motion because successive §
5
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 72
2255 motions based on new law must be based on new rules of
constitutional law and Bailey involved statutory construction
rather than constitutional law.”
Boatwright 742 F. App’x at
702-03 (internal citations omitted).
The Third Circuit
considered § 2255 to be ineffective or inadequate under these
circumstances and permitted Dorsainvil to raise his Bailey claim
under § 2241.
The Court must consider two conditions in applying the
Dorsainvil exception: (1) there must be “a claim of actual
innocence on the theory that [the prisoner] is being detained
for conduct that has subsequently been rendered non-criminal ...
in other words, when there is a change in statutory caselaw that
applies retroactively in cases on collateral review,” and (2)
“the prisoner must be ‘otherwise barred from challenging the
legality of the conviction under § 2255.’”
Bruce v. Warden
Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 180 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting United
States v. Tyler, 732 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 2013)).
The Court concludes that Rehaif claims satisfy the first
requirement.
In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that “the
Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed
a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category
of persons barred from possessing a firearm” to obtain a
conviction under § 922(g).
139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019).
The
Third Circuit recently decided that “[t]he latter half of that
6
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 73
holding – that the government must prove that the defendant knew
of his status as a person prohibited from having a gun –
announced a newly found element of the crime.”
Nasir, 982 F.3d 144, 160 (3d Cir. 2020).
change in statutory caselaw.
United States v.
Therefore, Rehaif is a
Petitioner states a colorable
claim of actual innocence because if he did not know he was a
person prohibited from having a gun, his conduct does not
violate § 922(g) after Rehaif.
See In re Wright, 942 F.3d 1063,
1066 (11th Cir. 2019) (Rosenbaum, J., concurring) (“[]Rehaif’s
rule is a retroactively applicable new rule of statutory law . .
. .”).
The Court further concludes Petitioner has satisfied the
second Bruce requirement to proceed under § 2241.
As in
Dorsainvil, Petitioner cannot “seek relief in another § 2255
motion because successive § 2255 motions based on new law must
be based on new rules of constitutional law and [Rehaif]
involved statutory construction rather than constitutional law.”
Boatwright v. Warden Fairton FCI, 742 F. App’x 701, 702-03 (3d
Cir. 2018).
Petitioner “also had no prior opportunity to raise
his challenge in an initial § 2255 motion because [Rehaif] was
decided after his § 2255 proceeding was complete.”
Id. at 703.
As Petitioner’s Rehaif claim satisfies the two requirements
set forth in Bruce, the Court concludes it has jurisdiction to
7
Case 1:20-cv-04414-NLH Document 9 Filed 01/22/21 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 74
decide the petition under § 2241.
Accordingly, the motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
Respondent also asks the Court to dismiss the petition on
the merits.
The Court concludes that there is insufficient
evidence in the record before the Court to make a merits
determination.
For example, Respondent has not provided copies
of Petitioner’s prior judgments of conviction or transcripts of
relevant proceedings before the sentencing court.
Per the terms
of the Court’s May 13, 2020 order, ECF No. 4, Respondent is
ordered to file a full and complete answer to the petition.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction is denied.
An appropriate order will be
entered.
Dated: January 22, 2021
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
8
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?