McKnight v. United States

27 F.Supp.3d 575

Riccardo McKNIGHT, Petitioner

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 13–3747 WHW.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed June 25, 2014.

Riccardo McKnight, Cumberland, MD, pro se.

Scott B. McBride, United States Attorney's Office, Newark, NJ, Thomas J. Eicher, United States Attorney's Office, Trenton, NJ, for Respondent.

OPINION

WALLS, Senior District Judge:

This case, commenced as a § 2255 action, has been peppered by Petitioner's filings that evinced his, and has caused Respondent's, confusion. Petitioner's § 2255 claims will be denied, and no certificate of appealability will issue. But, as explained later, there are also three other lines of habeas claims litigated here. No habeas petitioner can challenge different determinations in a single action. “Habeas Rules do not envision ... a lump-sum challenge to the circumstances which a litigant might find [himself] in. Rather, [under] Habeas Rule 2(e), [P]etitioner is obligated to submit a separate habeas application challenging each particular determination.... [P]etitioner shall select, for the purposes of each ... habeas action, [a] particular [administrative or judicial] determination ... he wishes to challenge, and then file an individual petition with regard to each specific challenge.” Alou v. Holder, No. 10–3728, 2010 WL 4316946, at *1, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113717, at *2–3 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(e), applicable to §§ 2241 and 2255 petitions through Habeas Rule 1(b)) (capitalization removed); see also Muniz v. Zickefoose, No. 10–2444, 2011 WL 4703065, at *4, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115766, at *13 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2011) (noting the same as “axiomatic”), aff'd, 460 Fed.Appx. 165 (3d Cir.2012). When a litigant raises different habeas challenges in a single action, the court either dismisses his claims for failure to comply with Habeas Rule 2(e) or severs each line of challenges into its own habeas case. See, e.g., Johnson v. Zickefoose, No. 12–2544, 2014 WL 64456, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2091 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2014) (creating four separate habeas actions for each line of claims); Watts v. United States, No. 11–0912, 2011 WL 2180658, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59082 (D.N.J. May 31, 2011) (creating two separate habeas actions for each line of claims); accord Frank v. Shartle, No. 13–5285, 2013 WL 5592414, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146605 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2013) (dismissing an improperly raised claim without prejudice to raising it in a new case); Izac v. Norwood, No. 10–5865, 2010 WL 5095893, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129520 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2010) (dismissing an improperly raised claim under the Rule and on alternative grounds).

Here Petitioner styled all his claims as § 2255 allegations. It was a mistake.

Section 2254 supplies federal jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by the inmates challenging their state convictions or sentences, or the execution of those state sentences, including the issues of parole, term calculation, etc.See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In contrast, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 confer jurisdiction over the petitions filed by federal inmates. Since “[t]he exact interplay between § 2241 and § 2255 is complicated, [and] an explication of that relationship is unnecessary for resolution of this [case],” Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir.2012) (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.1997) ), it is enough to state that “[m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.2002). As example, claims attacking plea agreements are raised in § 2255 motions. See, e.g., Hodge v. United States, 554 F.3d 372, 374 (3d Cir.2009) ; United States v. Williams, 158 F.3d 736, 737–40 (3d Cir.1998). On the other hand, § 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence,” for instance, by raising claims attacking the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculation of his prison term or designation of his place of confinement if it yields a “quantum of change” in the level of his custody. Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir.2001) ); compare Ganim v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 235 Fed.Appx. 882 (3d Cir.2007) (a change in the geographical locale of imprisonment cannot yield the requisite quantum of change).

On April 21, 2008, the Government charged Petitioner with “knowingly and willfully devis[ing] a scheme ... to defraud and to obtain money and property by ... false pretenses.” United States v. McKnight, Crim. Action No. 08–mj–4039, ECF No. 1(CCC) (D.N.J.). On April 29, 2008, he was arrested and, on May 5, 2008, released on bail. See id., ECF Nos. 3 and 7. A year later, he pled guilty to that charge. See United States v. McKnight (“McKnight ”), Crim. Action No. 09–0242, ECF Nos. 14, 16 and 17(WHW) (D.N.J.). His plea included a broadly-termed waiver stating, “[Petitioner] voluntarily waive[s] the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to ... a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenges the sentence imposed by the sentencing court....” This Action, ECF No. 8, Ex. 7 (emphasis supplied).

This Court held Petitioner's plea and sentencing hearings. See McKnight, Crim. Action No. 09–0242, ECF Nos. 24 and 29. Since, by that time, Petitioner was already confined at the Warren County Jail after being arrested on one of his many New Jersey charges, this Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. See id., ECF No. 20. Petitioner's hearings before this Court did not involve any issue connected to his state charges, past or pending. Rather, his plea colloquy before this Court was:

The Court: You are here to plead guilty to a charge of wire fraud in violation of federal law. Do you understand that?

Petitioner: Yes, I do.

The Court: You should understand that you are under no obligation to plead guilty to the charge.... Do you follow me so far?

Petitioner: Yes, I do.

The Court: Let me back up for a moment ... and get some personal history about you.... [W]hat type of work have you done ... [s]ince you left two years of college?

Petitioner: ... I worked down on Wall Street for six years.

The Court: What did you do?

Petitioner: Stocks and bonds.... [I was a] transfer agent.

...

The Court: Now, getting back to what I said.... [D]o you realize that if you plead guilty to this charge, you expose and subject yourself to being sent to jail by me for [up to] 20 years.... Do you understand that?

Petitioner: Yes.

...

The Court: Knowing that, you still wish to plead guilty to the charge?

Petitioner: Yes.

The Court: ... [Y]our attorneys, on your behalf and with your knowledge, have worked out [this] plea deal.... Is that correct?

Petitioner: Yes.

...

The Court: [T]he sentence that will be imposed upon you ... will be the result of my exercise of discretion. I will be the only one who decides what you should get by way of sentence.... I will be glad to listen to what you may have to say.... Do you understand that?

Petitioner: Yes.

...

The Court: Has anyone made any promises to you ... to get you to plead guilty ... that you and I have not talked about today?

Petitioner: No.

The Court: Have you and I now discussed the plea bargain?

Petitioner: ... Yes.

The Court: Did I leave anything out?

Petitioner: No.

The Court: You're sure?

Petitioner: Yes.

...

The Court: Did you sign the application to enter a plea?

Petitioner: Yes.

...

The Court: Before you signed those papers, did you read them?

Petitioner: Yes.

The Court: Did you review them with your attorney?

Petitioner: Yes.

The Court: Have you been satisfied with your attorney so far?

Petitioner: Yes.

The Court: Are there any questions you want to ask him about the papers or [about] anything [else at all]?

Petitioner: No, Your Honor.

The Court: Anything you want to ask me about?

Petitioner: No, Your Honor.

The Court: You're sure?

Petitioner: Yes.

This Action, ECF No. 8, Ex. 2.

On April 14, 2010, this Court sentenced Petitioner to sixty months of federal imprisonment. See McKnight, Crim. Action No. 09–0242, ECF No. 25, at 2. With that, Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum expired, and he was returned to the State of New Jersey, the sovereign that held primary jurisdiction over him as a result of his Warren County arrest. As of now, Petitioner is still in the state's jurisdiction serving his New Jersey terms. See http://www.bop.gov/Locate (“Riccardo McKnight, Register Number: 29283–050” is “not in BOP custody”); https://www6.state.nj.us/DOCInmate/results (New Jersey Department of Corrections (“NJDOC”) online record showing that “Ricky McKnight, SBI No. 667018B,” has been in New Jersey post-conviction custody since April 8, 2011, and is expected to become parole eligible on June 24, 2014, while his maximum release date from state custody is September 12, 2014).

In fact, Petitioner had three clusters of New Jersey convictions, each of many offenses. The first one was rendered April 8, 2011, by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County (“Somerset County conviction”): based on three charges, each yielding a five-year term running concurrently with each other; that judgment was accompanied by the state court's wishes that those terms would run concurrently with Petitioner's federal term imposed by this Court. The second group of convictions was rendered on September 23, 2011, by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County (“Bergen County conviction”): based on four charges that resulted in five-year terms running concurrently with each other and with the sentences imposed in Somerset County. As with the Somerset County sentences, the Bergen County sentences were also accompanied by the state court's wishes that they run concurrently with Petitioner's federal term imposed....