WEST v. SUBERVI

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 1/29/16. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL WEST,
Civil Action No. 15-7 100 (CCC)
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM OPINION

V.

ADAM NELSON SUBERVI,
Respondent.
CECCHI, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the September 25, 2015 Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Michael West (“Petitioner”), a

prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in fort Dix, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner is challenging a federal criminal conviction and sentence imposed by this Court in
United States v. West, No. 12-cr-0332 (D.N.J. filed Oct. 21, 2010). (Id. at 9.) On August 29, 2013,
Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate under 2$ U.S.C.

§ 2255, challenging that exact same conviction

and sentence. See West v. United States, No. 13-cv-5339 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 29, 2013). On
February 26, 2014, Petitioner filed a second

§ 2255 motion, which the Court dismissed as

duplicative on July 18,2014. West v. United States, No. l4-cv-1382 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 26, 2014).
As such, this is the third habeas challenge filed by Petitioner.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus [pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241] in behalf of a

prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C.

§ 2255], shall not

be entertained.. unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to
.

test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(e); see Bodnar v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 622

Fed. App’x 111, 112 (3d Cir. 2015) (“A habeas petition raising.
1

.

.

a challenge [against a prisoner’s

conviction or sentence] under

§ 2241 may not be entertained unless a §

2255 motion would be

‘inadequate or ineffective’ to test the legality of the petitioner’s detention.”). “Motions pursuant
to 2$ U.S.C.

§ 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their

convictions or sentences.” Bodnar, 622 Fed. App’x at 112 (quoting Okereke v. United States, 307
F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). A

§ 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective ‘only where the

petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a

§ 2255

proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.”
Id. (quoting Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 53 8-39 (3d Cir. 2002)).
Because Petitioner has already filed two
understands his proper avenue for relief is a

§ 2255 motions, it would appear Petitioner

§ 2255 motion. The Court’s review of the active

§ 2255 proceeding (the one filed on August 29, 2013) does not suggest the motion is somehow
inadequate or ineffective. Indeed, the government reviewed the motion and did not move to
dismiss it on procedural orjurisdictional grounds, and has thus far shown an intention to adjudicate
the motion on the merits. See West, No. 13-cv-5339, ECF No. 27. As such, Petitioner’s claims in
the instant Petition are not coguizable under § 2241, and must be dismissed. See Bodnar, 622 Fed.
App’x at 112 (upholding the district court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s
the petitioner had already filed a
August 29, 2013

Date: :J::

§ 2241 petition because

§ 2255 motion).’ To the extent Petitioner is seeking to amend his

§ 2255 motion, Petitioner must move to do so in that proceeding.

(

-

Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

As the Court is dismissing the Petition, Petitioner’s application to expedite preliminary
review, ECF No. 3, is also dismissed as moot.
2