Rinaldi v. Thomas

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1) The mtn for leave to proceed ifp 4 is GRANTEDfor the sole purpose of filing the petition.2) The petn for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction.3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 07/05/12. (ma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL RINALDI, A/K/A
RAMADAN,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN J.E. THOMAS,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-12-01062
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Michael Rinaldi, a/k/a Ramadan (“Ramadan”),1 an inmate currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USPLewisburg”), filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, presumably challenging his conviction in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.2 (Doc. 1.) Ramadan proceeds pro se and has
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4.) This matter is before the
The docket in this case indicates that the Clerk of Court contacted USP-Lewisburg
officials to confirm Petitioner’s name as “Ramadan,” and it was learned that no prisoner named
“Ramadan” is housed at that institution. (Court-only docket entry dated June 5, 2012.) However, as
is made clear in the petition, see infra, Ramadan is claiming that he is not Michael Rinaldi, despite
being labeled as such. (See Doc. 1.)
1

In his petition, Ramadan does not name the court that convicted him of the crimes for
which he is incarcerated. However, in two cases previously filed in this court by Michael Rinaldi,
he states that he was sentenced by the Honorable Edwin Kosik in this court, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Rinaldi v. Rios, 1:10-CV-00281 (2010)
(Rambo, J.); Rinaldi v. Sniezek, 1:08-CV-00679 (2008) (Rambo, J.).
2

court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow, the petition
will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

Background
In his petition, Ramadan states that he is “being held to answer for a judgement

entered against Michael Rinaldi, Register # 09590-067.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) He further
asserts that he is not Michael Rinaldi, but he is “being forced to answer to and for
Michael Rinaldi.” (Id.) He claims that “[t]here is no valid judgement against
Ramadan and his detention and confinement is illegal.” (Id.) The court construes
these allegations as a challenge to his conviction in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See supra note 2, at 1.

II.

Discussion
Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4

(“Preliminary Review; Serving the Petition and Order”) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977)
(applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b)). See, e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.
Supp. 156, 158-59 (M.D. Pa. 1979). Rule 4 provides, in pertinent part, “If it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
2

relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” A petition may be dismissed without review of an answer
“when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where . . . the
necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself.” Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d
134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970). The Allen court also stated that
“the District Court has a duty to screen out a habeas corpus petition which should be
dismissed for lack of merit on its face.” Id.
“[T]he usual avenue for federal prisoners seeking to challenge the legality of
their confinement,” including a challenge to the validity of a conviction or to a
sentence, is a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245,
249 (3d Cir. 1997). See also United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 n.2 (3d Cir.
1999); Snead v. Warden, F.C.I. Allenwood, 110 F. Supp. 2d 350, 352 (M.D. Pa. 2000).
The § 2255 motion must be filed in the district court where the defendant was
convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 5 (the motion must be filed in “the
court which sentenced him”).
A defendant can pursue a § 2241 petition only when he shows that the remedy
under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 5; see also United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d Cir.
3

2000). The inadequacy or ineffectiveness must be “a limitation of scope or procedure
. . . prevent[ing] a § 2255 proceeding from affording . . . a full hearing and
adjudication of [a] wrongful detention claim.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.
2002) (per curiam)). “It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to
utilize it, that is determinative.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538 (citing Garris v. Lindsay,
794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Hence, “[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or
ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year
statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. If a
petitioner improperly challenges a federal conviction or sentence under § 2241, the
petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Application of Galante, 437 F.2d
1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971).
In the instant case, Ramadan is challenging the legality of his detention by
questioning the validity of his conviction and sentence. Specifically, he contends that
he has mistakenly been identified as Michael Rinaldi, and thus has been forced into
incarceration pursuant to Michael Rinaldi’s conviction. While it is not clear if
Ramadan has a conviction in any court under the name Ramadan, clearly he is
4

challenging the conviction under the name of Michael Rinaldi. And, regardless of
whether Ramadan is or is not in fact Michael Rinaldi, he is nevertheless challenging
the legality of his confinement. In making these claims, however, Ramadan does not
assert that he first sought relief in the sentencing court.
Clearly, Ramadan has not demonstrated that the remedy under § 2255 would be
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. It does not appear that he
filed a direct appeal or a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. Further, the remedy
afforded under § 2241 is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that
prescribed under § 2255. Consequently, the court will dismiss this

§ 2241 petition

for lack of jurisdiction.
Of course, dismissal has no effect on Ramadan’s right to file a § 2255 motion in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As noted above, there is no jurisdictional bar to
such a motion. Further, § 2255 imposes a one-year statute of limitations on § 2255
motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In pertinent part, the limitations period begins to run
from “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” Id. Therefore,
Ramadan has one year from the date on which his conviction was final in order to file
a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court.

5

III.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing discussion, Ramadan’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to § 2241 will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
An appropriate order will issue.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: July 3, 2012.

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL RINALDI, A/K/A
RAMADAN,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner
v.
WARDEN J.E. THOMAS,
Respondent

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-12–01062
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is GRANTED
for the sole purpose of filing the petition.
2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: July 3, 2012.