Jones v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Anthony Jones
v. Civil No. 17-cv-259-SM
Robert Hazlewood, Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Anthony Jones, a federal prisoner presently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution, in Berlin, New Hampshire
(“FCI-Berlin”), has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(Doc. No. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter is
before this court for preliminary review, to determine whether
the petition is facially valid and may proceed. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243; LR 4.3(d)(4)(A); see also Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); § 2254 Rule 1(b) (§ 2254
Rules may apply to § 2241 petitions).
Discussion
On June 3, 2014, Jones was convicted, pursuant to his
guilty plea, in the District of Idaho of one count of
distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), and sentenced to serve eight-four months in prison.
See United States v. Jones, No. 1:13-CR-00064-EJL (D. Idaho June
3, 2014) (ECF No. 69). Jones alleges here that his conviction
Case 1:17-cv-00259-SM Document 4 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 3

2
is invalid as his crime occurred on land over which the United
States did not have jurisdiction, citing Adams v. United States,
319 U.S. 312 (1943).
Here, Jones has challenged the validity of the conviction
and sentence underlying his present incarceration. In general,
the court in which a federal defendant was convicted and
sentenced has exclusive jurisdiction over motions challenging
the validity of the conviction or sentence, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255(e)’s “savings clause” preserves
only a limited role for this court to consider claims filed by a
federal prisoner who was incarcerated within this district at
the time he filed the § 2241 petition:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf
of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by
motion pursuant to [§ 2255], shall not be entertained
... unless it ... appears that the remedy by motion
[under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (emphasis added). “[P]ost-conviction relief
can be termed ‘inadequate’ or ‘ineffective’ only when, in a
particular case, the configuration of section 2255 is such ‘as
to deny a convicted defendant any opportunity for judicial
rectification.’” Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85, 99
(1st Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Nothing in Jones’s petition provides any basis for the
court to find that § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective” to test
Case 1:17-cv-00259-SM Document 4 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 3

3
the validity of Jones’s conviction and sentence, with respect to
his jurisdictional claim. Accordingly, there is no savings
clause jurisdiction over Jones’s claims, and the district judge
should dismiss this petition, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, without prejudice to Jones’s ability to file a §
2255 motion in the District of Idaho.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the
district judge dismiss this case in its entirety, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file specific
written objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
December 7, 2017
cc: Anthony Jones, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00259-SM Document 4 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 3