Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terrelonge v. Oddo

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

October 16, 2017

MICHAEL GENE TERRELONGE, Petitioner
v.
WARDEN L. J. ODDO, ET AL., Respondents

          MEMORANDUM

          WILLIAM J. NEALON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently 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, [1] 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.

         I. Background

         The 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 North Carolina:

[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. Id.

         In June 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).[2] 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.

         On 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).

         II. Discussion

         A. Failure to State a Viable Cause of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 451

         As 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).

         Despite 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.").

         B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petitioner's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.