IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

DONALD DAVID DIXON, : CIV. NO. 23-1764 (RMB) : Petitioner : v. : MEMORANDUM OPINION : : STEVIE KNIGHT, : Warden FCI Fort Dix, : : Respondent :

This matter comes before the Court upon the petition for writ habeas corpus under

filed by Petitioner Donald David Dixon (Pet., Dkt. No. 1), and Respondent’s notice of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21- 857, ___ S.Ct.___,

(U.S. June 22, 2023), which abrogated In re Dorsainvil,

(3d Cir. 1997). (Letter, Dkt. No. 7.) Petitioner is a prisoner incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI-Fort Dix”). He was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina for Conspiracy to Unlawfully Dispense and Distribute Oxycodone, Oxymorphone, Methadone, and Alprazolam in violation of

,

(b)(l)(C); and Unlawful Dispensation and Distribution of Oxycodone, in violation of

(a)(l), 21 U.S.C. § 84l(b)(l)(C). U.S. v. Dixon, 17:6-cr-00030-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Dkt. No. 447.) 1 Petitioner’s direct appeal was denied by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2021. Id.

was dismissed by the sentencing court on April 14, 2022.

(Dkt.

Nos. 595, 596.) Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to Ruan v. United States, where

the Supreme Court recently held that for “purposes of a criminal conviction under § 841,” the Government must prove “that a defendant knew or intended that his or her conduct was unauthorized.”

(2022). For jurisdiction, Petitioner relies on the holding in Dorsainvil, that “a prisoner who had no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law may negate” may use the safety valve of

(e) to bring a habeas claim under

. In re Dorsainvil,

(3d Cir. 1997), abrogated by Jones

v. Hendrix, No. 21-857,

(U.S. June 22, 2023). (Petr’s Mem., Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6-7.) In Jones, the Supreme Court held that “a federal prisoner may not … file a second or successive § 2255 motion based solely on a more favorable interpretation of statutory law adopted after his conviction became final and his initial § 2255 motion

was resolved.” The statutory “limitation on second or successive motions” does not “make § 2255 ‘inadequate or ineffective’ such that the prisoner may proceed with his statutory claim under § 2241.” Jones, 2013 WL at 4110233, at *4. Jones precludes jurisdiction under § 2241 of Petitioner’s claim. Therefore, this Court will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Date: July 6, 2023 s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge