UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

DANNY BLACKMON, : CIV. NO. 20-12647 (RMB) : Petitioner : v. : OPINION : : WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX, : : Respondent :

BUMB, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in this proceeding under

. On September 14, 2020, Petitioner Danny Blackmon, a prisoner confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

(Pet., Dkt. No. 1) alleging that he was unlawfully convicted and sentenced for kidnapping in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Criminal Action Number, 7:03- cr-00077-BO, after having been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. Petitioner failed to pay the $5 filing pursuant to

(a), and failed to alternatively submit an application to proceed without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”), pursuant to

(a). Therefore, the Court administratively terminated the action, subject to reopening. (Order, Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner subsequently paid the filing fee on January 12, 2021. Civil Procedure 59(e). “A motion under Rule 59(e) is a ‘device to relitigate the original issue’ decided by the district court, and used to allege legal error.” United States v. Fiorelli,

(3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Smith v. Evans,

, 158–59 (3d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). In the Order administratively terminating this matter, this Court explained that Petitioner had not set forth a basis to challenge his federal conviction and sentence under

, through the saving clause of

(e). (Order, Dkt. No. 3.) The Court directed Petitioner to file an amended petition to establish a basis for jurisdiction. Petitioner did not do so.

On January 21, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 6). In his motion, Petitioner complains that the Court did not issue a notice before recharacterizing his petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. Petitioner relies on United States v. Castro,

(2003), where the Supreme Court held that district courts must notify pro se litigants before recharacterizing a motion as a first motion for relief under

. Petitioner claims that he addressed his motion to the Honorable Noel L. Hillman, and he requested the motion to be treated as a motion under

. Petitioner further submits that he is actually innocent, and

his petition should be addressed on that basis. filing fee. Petitioner, however, has not established jurisdiction for this Court to proceed on his motion, no matter how it is characterized. First, the Court did not recharacterize the motion as a first motion under

, but rather as a petition under

, which, unlike § 2255, does not have a provision barring second or successive petitions. Therefore,

is not relevant, and Petitioner was not entitled to notice. Second, a federal prisoner may not file a motion under

(c)1 with any judge of his choosing, such motions must be directed to the prisoner’s sentencing court, in Petitioner’s case, the Eastern District of North Carolina. Petitioner’s motion

was randomly assigned within the District of New Jersey and liberally construed by this Court as a petition under

, based on Petitioner’s custody within the district, which can provide a basis for jurisdiction. Third, Petitioner claims actual innocence as a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. While actual innocence is an element required to proceed through the saving clause of § 2255(e), a petitioner must also establish that “‘he is being detained for conduct that has subsequently been rendered non-criminal by an intervening Supreme Court decision’ and [Third Circuit] precedent construing

1

(c)(1)(A)(i) permits federal prisoners to seek modification of their terms of imprisonment, after exhausting administrative remedies, if USP,

(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting U.S. v. Tyler,

(3d Cir. 2013) (quoting In Re Dorsainvil,

(3d Cir. 1997). Petitioner has not made this showing. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not recognized a freestanding habeas claim for actual innocence. Id. at 183. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion for reconsideration and dismiss the petition for writ of habeas under

for lack of jurisdiction. This does not preclude Petitioner from bringing a motion under

(c) for modification of his term of imprisonment in his sentencing court.

An appropriate Order follows.

Date: August 6, 2021 s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge