Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180214_0000515.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:08:32+00:00

Document:
Antonio Hernandez-Vilar (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas relief. Petitioner is an inmate at FCI-Williamsburg, part of the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. Petitioner paid the filing fee. Receipt No. SCX300074764.
Petitioner was convicted of one count of possession of an unauthorized access device on a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (“the sentencing court”). United States v. Hernandez-Vilar, No. 7:14-cr-0021-HL-TOL-4 (M.D. Ga.). On March 3, 2015, he was sentenced to a prison term of 80 months. On February 24, 2016, Petitioner filed an initial motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. The motion asserted that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel when a direct appeal was not filed. The § 2255 motion was denied and Petitioner's appeal from that denial to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was unsuccessful. Petitioner then filed an unsuccessful petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising the subject-matter jurisdiction claim that he raises in this case. Hernandez-Vilar v. Hancock, No. 1:17-cv-0047-WLS-TOL (M.D. Ga.).
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se petition filed in this case. The review was conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979).
This court is required to construe pro se petitions liberally. Such pro se petitions are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978), and a federal district court is charged with liberally construing a petition filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the petition submitted in this case is subject to summary dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
In the Petition under review, Petitioner contends that his conviction should be vacated because it was entered in absence of subject-matter jurisdiction and because he was not properly taken from Georgia state custody by federal authorities through a detainer or bench warrant. ECF No. 1 at 6. Petitioner's allegations of conviction in absence of jurisdiction and without use of the proper procedures for removing him from state custody all go to the underlying validity of his conviction rather than to the manner of execution of the sentence, the most commonly accepted subject matter for petitions filed pursuant to § 2241. See Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases from other circuits).
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). With regard to the application of the § 2255 savings clause to § 2241 petitions, it is settled in this circuit that the possibility that a second § 2255 motion filed by Petitioner in the sentencing court might be found untimely or successive does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective. See In Re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5; see also Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2001) (collecting cases).

References: § 2241
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2241
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v.