United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RALPH E. HAUCK, JR., Petitioner
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
RICHARD CAPUTO United States District Judge.
December 1, 2016, Petitioner Ralph E. Hauck, Jr., a former
federal inmate presently on supervised release,
filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1, Pet.) He has
paid the requisite $5.00 filing fee.
of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts provide that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, “[i]f 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.” See also Lonchar v.
Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320, 116 S.Ct. 1293, 1297, 134
L.Ed.2d 440 (1996) (discussing Rule 4). Rule 1(b) of those
Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to
other habeas corpus cases. See Brennan v. United
States, 646 F. App'x 662, 665 n. 5 (10th Cir. 2016).
reasons outlined below, the Petition will be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
January 26, 2000, Mr. Hauck was indicted on charges of
witness tampering and obstruction of justice. On June 22, 2000,
following a two-day jury trial, Mr. Hauck was convicted of
all counts. On September 12, 2000, he was sentenced on each
count to a term of 15-months imprisonment followed by a
3-year term of supervised release. His sentences ran
April 13, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed Mr. Hauck's conviction and
sentence. See Hauck v. United States, No. 00-2812
(3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2001). He then filed a motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to § 2255. His motion was denied on
April 17, 2003. See United States v. Hauck,
4:CR-00-0025 (M.D. Pa.) (McClure, J.). On February 2, 2004,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mr. Hauck's
request for a certificate of appealability. See Hauck v.
United States, No. 03-2482 (3d Cir. Feb. 2, 2004).
April 14, 2011, Mr. Hauck was indicted on three counts of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and a single count of trespassing
at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1793. See United States v. Hauck,
4:CR-11-0130 (M.D. Pa.) (Kane, J.). On February 23, 2012, Mr.
Hauck pled guilty to Count Three, possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon. (Id.) On July 24, 2012, Mr. Hauck
was sentenced to a 24-month term of imprisonment, a
three-year term of supervised release, and a special
assessment of $100. See United States v. Hauck,
4:CR-11-0130 (M.D. Pa.) (Kane, J.).
Hauck timely appealed his sentence to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Id.) In part, he
argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibition of gun
ownership by convicted felons violated the Second Amendment.
United States v. Hauck, No. 12-3130 (3d Cir. Jul.
24, 2013). On July 24, 2013 the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals rejected his Second Amendment claim in light of
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128
S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) and Mr. Hauck's
“long list of past convictions.” United
States v. Hauck, No. 12-3130 (3d Cir. Jul. 24, 2013)
(slip op.). The United States Supreme Court denied Mr.
Hauck's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on December 2,
2013. See Hauck v. United States, No. 13-7053 (U.S.
Dec. 2, 2013). Mr. Hauck then filed a motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United
States v. Hauck, 4:CR-11-0130 (M.D. Pa.) (Kane, J.) (ECF
No. 99.) On July 27, 2015, the sentencing court denied the
Petition. (Id., ECF No. 115.)
recently, Mr. Hauck filed several motions to Modify his
Conditions of Supervised Release with the sentencing court.
On September 28, 2016, the sentencing court appointed Edward
J. Rymsza, Esquire, to assist Petitioner. (Id., ECF
No. 124.) On October 5, 2016, the Honorable Yvette Kane
granted Mr. Hauck's unopposed motion to permit him to
possess a bow and arrow for the lawful purpose of archery
hunting during Pennsylvania's archery season.
(Id., ECF No. 126.) On November 21, 2016, Attorney
Rymszma filed an unopposed Motion to Correct the Record.
(Id., ECF No. 127).
Hauck's present habeas petition was filed on December 1,
2016. (ECF No. 1, Pet.) In his Petition, he asserts he plead
not guilty and requested a jury trial but his attorneys never
took his “evidence or wittnesses (sic) to the
court.” (Id., p. 2.) He also claims his §
2255 petition is “still pending.” (Id.,
p. 4.) He argues he is not a felon and that his firearms were
never used in any crimes. He seeks the return of his guns as
he uses them for legal hunting, recreational, protections and
butchering purposes. He asks that his conviction be
overturned or he receive a pardon. (Id., p. 6.)
a prisoner may challenge his federal conviction or sentence
only by means of a § 2255 motion brought before the
sentencing court, and this remedy typically supersedes the
writ of habeas corpus. See Okereke v. United States,
307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (a motion filed pursuant to
§ 2255 is the presumptive means for challenging a
federal conviction). The “savings clause” under
§ 2255(e) allows a federal prisoner to file a petition
under § 2241, if the remedy provided by § 2255 is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e);
see also Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997)). In
considering what it means to be “inadequate or
ineffective, ” the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that a federal prisoner should be permitted to seek
relief under § 2241 “only where the petitioner
demonstrates that some limitation or procedure would prevent
a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing
and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.”
Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir.2002) (citations omitted). However, “[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 ... §
2255.” Id. at 539 (citations omitted).
“It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal
inability to use it, that is determinative.”
Id. at 538 (citation omitted). “The provision
exists to ensure that petitioners have a fair opportunity to
seek collateral relief, not to enable them to evade
procedural requirements.” Id. (citation
omitted). Rather, only when a prisoner is in the ...