United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 18, 2005.
HARVEY J. HUDSON, Petitioner
TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
Petitioner, Harvey Hudson, a federal prisoner confined at the
United States Penitentiary-Allenwood ("USP-Allenwood") in White
Deer, Pennsylvania, commenced this action pro se with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The applicable filing fee has
been paid in full. Respondent is USP-Allenwood Warden, Troy
On October 28, 1987, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia for various sex
crimes*fn1 involving his stepdaughter. As a result of the
conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 112 years to
life. Thereafter, Petitioner filed 17 post-trial motions in the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, as well as 5 civil rights complaints, one mandamus petition, and two
habeas petitions in the United States District Court and/or Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1, Appx. 1.)
Further, Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, and that Court affirmed his conviction
and sentence on April 18, 1990. Moreover, Petitioner has filed
three prior habeas petitions to this Court (Civil Action No. 1:CV
02-2259, Civil Action No. 1:CV 03-0337, and Civil Action No.
In the instant action, Petitioner claims that (1) he is
entitled to a full and fair hearing on the impropriety of his
conviction and sentence, and (2) he is being held unlawfully
because the "judgment of conviction [was] rendered without
jurisdiction." (Doc. 1 at 3.) For the reasons set forth, the
petition will be dismissed.
Habeas corpus petitions brought under § 2241 are subject to the
Rules Governing § 2254 cases in the United States District
Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977) (applicable to § 2241
petitions under 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 face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for
its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified."
Under Rule 9, "[b]efore presenting a second or successive petition, the
petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of
appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and (4)." There is no doubt
that this is a second or successive petition which falls within
the scope of Rule 9. Since Petitioner has not sought the
requisite authority from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit to file this petition, the petition will be
summarily dismissed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule
9 of the Rules applicable to § 2254 habeas petitions. ORDER
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is
2) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
3) The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.