IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDRICK ROLLE, :

:

Petitioner :

: CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-1383

:

v. : Hon. John E. Jones III

 :

:

WILLIAM SCISM, :

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

 August 16, 2010

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

On July 6, 2010, Petitioner Fredrick Rolle (“Petitioner” or “Rolle”), an inmate

presently confined at the Low Security Correctional Institution at Allenwood (“LSCI

Allenwood”), in White Deer, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. (Doc. 1.) He simultaneously filed an Application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) 

Because the grounds for relief in the Petition were unclear, in a Memorandum

and Order dated July 29, 2010, we directed Rolle to file an amended petition within

fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 3.) Rolle filed his Amended Petition on August 11, 2010. 

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6
(Doc. 4.) He also filed a Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5),

which will be denied as moot in light of the fact that he already has made his request

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

For the reasons set forth below, Rolle’s request for in forma pauperis status will

be granted for the sole purpose of filing this action, and the Amended Petition will be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

In his Amended Petition, Rolle states that, on August 7, 2006, he was sentenced

in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York to a term of

imprisonment of 150 months to be followed by a five (5) year term of supervised

release. (Doc. 4 at 2.) He was sentenced following his entry of a guilty plea for

Conspiracy to Distribute Narcotics. (Id.) He states that his conviction was affirmed

by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at 3.) In addition, he states that on

January 17, 2006, he filed a motion with the sentencing court under the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Id. at 5 ¶ 12.) In the section of the form petition asking Rolle to

provide the disposition of that motion, he writes, “final Judgement made in fraud

August 7, 2006 fraud and collusion hate crime by classifying and enslaving poor due

process of law violation, stealing Constitutional rights.” (Id.) 

Rolle also states that he has filed administrative remedies and an administrative

2

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 6
tort claim. (Id. at 3 ¶ 8(c).) A review of the responses to Rolle’s administrative

remedies attached to the Amended Petition shows that Rolle has attempted to

challenge the basis for his detention by alleging that the Federal Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”) lacks authority to hold him in custody. (See id. at 18, 21.) The response to

Rolle’s administrative tort claim, dated November 10, 2009, indicates that his one

billion dollar claim for events which he claimed to have occurred on the date of his

arrest, April 20, 2005, was rejected as untimely under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2401(b). (See id. at 9, 11.) 

Rolle’s statement of his grounds for relief is not much more coherent than the

statement in his original Petition. He still fails to provide a clear statement of specific

facts to adequately explain his grounds. However, we have gleaned from his

Amended Petition that Rolle seeks to challenge the fact of his confinement on the

basis that he allegedly is being held on a secret hate crime charge for which he never

was charged by a grand jury. (Id. at 3 ¶ 9.) He claims that he is actually innocent “of

the crime and the sentence.” (Id.) He also claims to be a victim of “warden witness

tampering hate crimes illegal detention.” (Id.) In addition, Rolle claims that, even

though he asked for an attorney at the time of his arrest on April 20, 2005, he never

3

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 6
received one.1

 (Id.) 

Rolle alleges that there was a final judgment made in fraud and collusion, and

he asks for his immediate release. (Id. at 4.) Although he states that a motion filed

under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention, he fails to explain why. (Id.) The remainder of his statement

of grounds consists of a reiteration of the points he already made. (Id.) 

It is apparent that Rolle seeks to challenge his conviction and sentence,

including the validity of the charges to which he pled guilty, an alleged right to denial

of counsel, and the resulting sentence. He cannot pursue this challenge through a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The remedy for a federal criminal defendant

claiming that his conviction and/or sentence was imposed in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is to file a motion with the court which

imposed his sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Dorsainvil,

119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997). A defendant can challenge a conviction or sentence

under § 2241 only if a § 2255 motion 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; In re

1

Contrary to his claim that he never received an attorney, Rolle provides the name of the

Assistant Public Defender who represented him in his proceedings in the United States District

Court for the Western District of New York. (Doc. 1 at 7 ¶ 17.) 

4

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 6
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. Habeas corpus under § 2241 is “reserved for rare

cases,” and therefore, this “safety-valve” provision of 

§ 2255 must be strictly construed. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 250, 251. 

Rolle’s general statement that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to

pursue his challenge to his conviction and sentence is inadequate to allow him to

proceed on the instant Amended Petition. The mere fact that relief was denied when

he filed his § 2255 motion with the sentencing court, or that Rolle fails to meet the

requirements to file a second or successive motion, does not make the remedy

afforded by § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Manna v. Schultz, 591 F.3d 664,

665 (3d Cir. 2010). Moreover, while Rolle claims that he has filed administrative

remedies with the BOP, and a petition for writ of mandamus with the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals, he does not state that he has sought permission from the Second

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive motion under § 2255 with the

United States District Court for the Western District of New York.2

 Accordingly, we

2

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) provides as follows:

(h) A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section

2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeal to contain- 

 (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of

the offense; or

 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

5

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 6
must dismiss the instant Amended Petition for lack of jurisdiction. An appropriate

Order will enter.

6

Case 4:10-cv-01383-JEJ-SF Document 6 Filed 08/16/10 Page 6 of 6