1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTONIO B. ADAMS, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-05-720

:

CRAIG APKER, : (Judge McClure) 

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 May 13, 2005 

Background

Antonio B. Adams, an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood Low

Security Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania (LSCI-Allenwood),

filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

By Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2005, the petition was dismissed

without prejudice.

 Petitioner, a native of Jamaica, is presently serving a sixty (60) month

sentence for his conviction on a drug related offense in the United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri. In addition, the Bureau of Immigration

Case 4:05-cv-00720-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 5
1 On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was

transferred into the Department of Homeland Security and divided into three

compartments. One of the compartments, the BICE, is responsible for the

investigative and enforcement duties of the former INS.

2

and Customs Enforcement (BICE)1 has lodged a detainer against Adams. 

Petitioner’s present action challenged his federal conviction on the basis that

he was not advised of his right to seek assistance from the Jamaican consulate. His

petition added that the failure of government officials to apprise him of his right

under 8 C.F.R. § 242 was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process and

equal protection rights as well as Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular

Relations. Based on those same arguments, Adams, relying upon INS v. St. Cyr,

533 U.S. 289 (2001), also attacked the legality of the BICE’s detainer. As relief,

Petitioner sought his release and reversal of his criminal conviction.

In dismissing his petition, this Court concluded that Adams could not

employ § 2241 to challenge the legality of his criminal conviction from the Western

District of Missouri. It was noted that there was no basis to conclude that

Petitioner’s remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. 

Consequently, Adams was advised that any challenge to his federal conviction had

to be pursued via either a § 2255 petition or an application for leave to file a second

Case 4:05-cv-00720-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 5
3

or successive § 2255 action. With respect to his BICE detainer challenge, the

Court noted that there was no indication that a final order of removal had been

entered and that the detainer was being attacked on the grounds that it resulted from

an illegally obtained conviction. Furthermore, unlike St Cyr: (1) Adams’

conviction did not occur prior to the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act and (2) Petitioner was seeking to vacate a federal

criminal sentence and thus had the availability of a § 2255 remedy. 

Petitioner presently seeks reconsideration of the dismissal of his habeas

petition on the grounds that the Court selectively included and omitted facts from

the petition. Adams also argues that this Court’s decision constitutes a suspension

of the writ of habeas corpus. He has also filed a request for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.

Discussion

A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. It may be used

only to seek remediation of manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

discovered precedent or evidence which, if discovered previously, might have

affected the court's decision. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir.

1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). 

Case 4:05-cv-00720-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 5
4

It has also been held that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate in

instances such as where the court has " . . . misunderstood a party, or has made a

decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by parties, or has

made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension." See Rohrbach v. AT & T

Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on

other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983). "Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments,

motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly." Continental Casualty

Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 

Adams’ reconsideration motion does not present any facts or arguments

which would undermine this Court’s prior determination that the challenge to his

federal conviction cannot be asserted via a § 2241 petition. Second, this Court

finds that Adams’ argument that this Court’s prior determination was an

unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus lacks arguable merit. On

the contrary, this Court correctly found that § 2255 was Adams’ exclusive remedy

since he had not established that said remedy was inadequate or ineffective.

 Since Petitioner’s reconsideration motion has failed to establish the presence

of any errors of law or fact and does not set forth any newly discovered evidence

Case 4:05-cv-00720-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 4 of 5
5

or precedent, it will be denied. However, the Petitioner’s request for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be granted. Consequently,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Record

document no. 4) is denied.

2. The Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal (Record document no. 6) is granted.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00720-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 5 of 5