United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM J. NEALON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending are a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 451, et seq.. and a
motion for preliminary injunction, both of which were filed
by Petitioner, Michael Gene Terrelonge, a federal inmate
incarcerated at the Allenwood United States Penitentiary, in
White Deer, Pennsylvania. (Docs. 1 and 5). Upon preliminary
review,  for the reasons set forth below, the
petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction and the motion for preliminary injunction
will be denied.
following background is extracted from the disposition on
appeal affirming Petitioner's sentence and conviction in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
[Petitioner] was indicted on one count of conspiracy to
commit bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371), three counts of
armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113), and three counts
of brandishing and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
[Petitioner] proceeded to trial pro se, and the jury
convicted him on all counts. Thereafter, the district court
sentenced [Petitioner] (who was again represented by counsel)
to 744 months in prison.
United States v. Terrelonge, 520 Fed.Appx. 151, 152
(4th Cir.2013), cert denied. 134 S.Ct. 228 (2013).
On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence.
2014, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United
States v. Terrelonge. No. 3:14-CV-360- RJC (W.D. N.C.
2014). The sentencing court denied the motion
because Petitioner's claims were facially without merit
and he had waived the claims by failing to assert them on
appeal. Terrelonge v. United States, No.
3:14-CV-360-RJC, 2015 WL 7738379 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 30, 2015).
The District Court also declined to issue a certificate of
appealability. Id. Petitioner did not appeal the
denial of this Section 2255 motion.
March 5, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition,
asserting the following: (1) this Court's review of his
petition must be guided by 28 U.S.C. § 451, et seq..
because 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 "were never
enacted into positive law, are unconstitutional on their
face, and are null and void ab initio"; (2) he committed
no crime as "Public Law 80-772 and 18 U.S.C.
§§§ 3231, 2213, 924(c)  were never enacted
into positive law, are unconstitutional on their face, and
null, void ab initio, meaning that the [sentencing] court
ha[d] NO JURISDICTION over Petitioner and his Indictment is
null and void ab initio, from beginning to end"; (3)
Petitioner is "not the Defendant in Case No.
3:09-cr-00229-RJC-DCK-1" (his criminal docket number);
(4) his Indictment is void because the prosecution committed
fraud by charging him for violating a statute "that
they know was unconstitutional"; and (5)
the Court violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine and
Committed judicial fraud. Id.; (Doc. 1).
Failure to State a Viable Cause of Action Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 451
filed, the petition presents no basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. In 1940, 28 U.S.C. § 451 was the statutory
provision that provided authority for the district courts to
issue writs of habeas corpus. See Walker v.
Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 283 (1941) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 451) ("the statutes of the United States declare
that ... the district courts shall have power to issue writs
of habeas corpus."). However, in its present form,
Section 451 provides definitions under Title 28, Judiciary
and Judicial Procedures, which, upon review, do not provide
Petitioner with a viable cause of action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 451. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the instant habeas petition under the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 451, et seg, . See Gasawav v.
Ebbert Civ. No. 4:10-CV-1615, 2010 WL 3632504, at *2
(M.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2010).
Petitioner's misplaced reliance on Section 451 as the
source of his request for habeas relief, it is clear he seeks
habeas relief. Accordingly, this Court has reviewed his
habeas petition to determine whether relief is available
pursuant to Section 2241 or Section 2255. See Castro v.
United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003) (citations
omitted) (noting that a federal court may "ignore the
legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and
recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a
different legal category.").
The Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petitioner's