Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF Document 3 Filed 07/O9/2008 Page1 of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JONATHAN LEE RICHES, :
Petitioner, ;
v. ; Civ. A. No. 08-345-JJF
KASSIA MEADOR, et. al., E
Respondents. E
O R D E R
Petitioner Jonathan Lee Riches has filed a prg sg
Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 (“Application"). (D.I. 1) Petitioner contends that he has
been denied placement in a halfway house located in Wilmington
Delaware, in violation of his 8m Amendment rights. Id;
However, for the following reasons, the Court concludes that it
lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's challenge to the
administration of his Federal sentence.
First, Petitioner is a Federal prisoner, and therefore, he
must file the instant challenge to the execution of his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Qgady
v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Second, even if the
Court were to construe the present action as having been filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a Federal prisoner's § 2241
challenge to his present physical confinement must be filed in
the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
443 (2004). Petitioner is presently confined in the Williamsburg

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF Document 3 Filed 07/O9/2008 Page 2 of 3
Federal Correctional Institution in Salters, South Carolina.
Thus, Petitioner should have filed his § 2241 Application in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
And finally, Petitioner is a well—known litigator in the
Federal courts, having filed more than 1,000 actions in various
Federal and Appellate courts since 2006. See Riches v. Seda, et.
alg, Civ. A. 08-346-JJF, Order (D. Del. July 1, 2008). At least
96 of those actions were filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See
Riches v. Jordan, et. al., Civ. A. No. 08—329—SAJ, Order (N.D.
Okla. June 5, 2008)(collecting cases). As a result, the instant
Application constitutes a second or successive habeas petition
for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Although the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") requires
petitioners to first obtain authorization from the appropriate
court of appeals before filing a second or subsequent habeas
petition in a district court, the record in this case is clear
that Petitioner did not obtain authorization from United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file his § 2241
Application in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Queen v.
Miner, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 2512918 (3d Cir. 2008)(holding that §
2244(a) applies to any application for the writ of habeas corpus
filed by a person who is in the custody of a court of the United
States); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2646
(2005)(“before the district court may accept a successive
2

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF D0cument3 Filed 07/O9/2008 Page30f3
petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it
presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet
§ 2244(b)(2)’s new—rule or actual—innocence provisions"). Given
Petitioner's voluminous frivolous filings in the Federal court
system, the Court concludes that transferring the case to the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
would not be in the “furtherance of justice." 28 U.S.C. §
2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, the Application (D.I.
1.) is DISMISSED without a Certificate of Appealability,1 and the
Clerk is directed to close the case.
;7~ie<>? xsi. L) · . A
DATE ED ‘=1A S n1sTR1c En
128 U.s.c. § 2253(c) (2); ge United States v. Eyer, 113
F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3rd Cir. LAR 22.2.
3

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF

Document 3

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF

Document 3

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00345-JJF

Document 3

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 3 of 3