UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

TEODORO OROZCO-CASTILLO, :

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

et al., :

:

Respondents. :

 :

Hon. Noel L. Hillman

Civil No. 11-0141(NLH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HILLMAN, District Judge:

1. On January 10, 2011, Petitioner Teodoro Orozco-Castillo,

a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, filed a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging

his imprisonment pursuant to a federal sentence imposed on May

12, 2004, by the United States District Court for the Western

District of Missouri. See United States v. Orozco-Castillo,

Crim. No. 03-0344-FJG-2 judgment (W.D. Mo. May 14, 2004). 

Petitioner argued that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the possession of 50

grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.

2. By Order and Opinion entered January 14, 2011, this

Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction because a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective

for Petitioner’s claim that he is actually innocent because there

was insufficient evidence to convict him. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:11-cv-00141-NLH Document 8 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 46
2255(e) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of

a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion

pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained . . . unless

it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or

ineffective to test the legality of his detention”); Cradle v.

U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F. 3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002).

3. On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a “MOTION TO

RECONSIDER COURT’S JURISDICTIONAL DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S TITLE 28

U.S.C. § 2241 PETITION.” (Docket Entry #7.) Citing Schlup v.

Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307

(1979), and Bellomo v. United States, 297 F. Supp. 2d 494

(E.D.N.Y. 2003) , Petitioner contends that this Court should 1

reconsider dismissal of his Petition because he “is not

challenging his sentence, he is asserting that he is innocent,

there was insufficient evidence to convict him.” (Docket Entry

#7, p. 3.) 

4. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is “to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

discovered evidence.” Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d

669, 677 (3d Cir.1999). A proper motion for reconsideration must

rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the

 In Bellomo, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 1

District of New York transferred the § 2241 petition to the

Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

without ruling on the merits of Bellomo’s challenge to his

federal sentence. 

Case 1:11-cv-00141-NLH Document 8 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 47
need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. 

See N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,

1218 (3d Cir.1995). 

5. In this case, Petitioner argues that reconsideration is

necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest

injustice resulting from the incarceration of one who is actually

innocent. However, this Court considered and rejected

Petitioner’s claim that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective for

his actual innocence claim. See, e.g., Piggee v. Bledsoe, 2011

WL 179688 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2011) (“Piggee asserts that he is

actually innocent of being a career offender, and that, under

Dorsainvil, his claim is properly brought under Section 2241. He

is mistaken. Dorsainvil allows relief under Section 2241 when a

subsequent statutory interpretation renders a petitioner’s

conduct no longer criminal”). 

6. Here, Petitioner advanced the same arguments that were

in his Petition. “Because this is not a proper basis for

reconsideration,” this Court will deny the motion. Lazaridis v.

Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). 

7. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

 /s/ NOEL L. HILLMAN 

NOEL L. HILLMAN

United States District Judge

Date: February 24, 2011

At Camden, New Jersey

Case 1:11-cv-00141-NLH Document 8 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 48