United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION, District Judge.
Petitioner, Muttaqin Fatir Abdullah, an inmate currently confined in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania ("USP-Lewisburg"), filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1, petition). He challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
II. Procedural Background
On January 6, 2005, Petitioner was named in a one-count Indictment, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e)(1). See United States v. Abdullah, Criminal Action No. 3:05-cr-14-MBS (USDC South Carolina (Columbia)). On October 21, 2005, following a jury trial, Abdullah was found guilty, and on January 31, 2006, he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. Id.
On August 27, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Abdullah's judgment of sentence. Id . No petition for certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court. Id.
On October 6, 2008, Abdullah filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id.
By Decision and Order dated June 9, 2010, Petitioner's 2255 motion was denied without a hearing. Id.
On June 28, 2010, Abdullah appealed the denial of his § 2255 motion, which the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed on November 30, 2010. Id.
On February 11, 2014, Abdullah filed an application for leave to file a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which was denied on February 26, 2014. See In re Muttaqin Abdullah, No. 14-137 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014).
On November 10, 2014, Abdullah filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he claims that his "ABHAN conviction use[d] as a predicate offense was not a crime of violence that was use[d] to enhance petitioner under 924(e) A.C.C.A. to a life sentence, when petitioner was only convicted for felon in possession of a gun, 922(g)." (Doc. 1, petition).
Habeas corpus petitions brought under § 2254 are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 ("Preliminary Consideration by the Judge") of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977). 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 relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner."
"[T]he usual avenue for federal prisoners seeking to challenge the legality of their confinement" is a section 2255 motion. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). A challenge to either the validity of a conviction or to a sentence must be brought in the sentencing court by way of a section 2255 motion. See United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 n.2 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction and sentence. Thus, his proper avenue of relief is a section 2255 motion filed in the ...