Holy Pharoah M.M.H.R.A.A.L.S.A. El-Bey, Ed. D. v. United States of America, No. 2:2014cv07407 - Document 6 (D.N.J. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/16/14. (sr, )

Download PDF
Holy Pharoah M.M.H.R.A.A.L.S.A. El-Bey, Ed. D. v. United States of America Doc. 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ HOLY PHAROAH : M.M.H.R.A.A.L.S.A. El-Bey, Ed. D. SUPREME ABYSSINIAN : AMBASSODOR OF MOREHSH L.A.W. a/k/a JASON AMIN-BEY, : Petitioner, : v. : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., : Civil Action No. 14-7407 (SRC) OPINION Respondent. : ____________________________________ This § 2255 matter is before the Court upon a transfer order executed by the Eastern District of New York. See ECF No. 4. The transfer order details Petitioner’s litigation history in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia, as well as in this District. See id. at 1-3 (citing, inter alia, this Court’s decision in El-Bey v. United States, No. 13-4161 (D.N.J.), ECF No. 9). The Court will not repeat the same here. Suffice to state that Petitioner is a federal pre-trial detainee held in temporary custody in order to restore him to competency. Since a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is a vehicle to attack or seek correction of a convicted prisoner’s federal sentence, the § 2255 motion at bar is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because there has been no adjudication of Petitioner’s guilt in his pending criminal matter, nor any sentence imposed. See U.S. v.Colburn, 345 F. App’x 764, 764-65 (noting that a Dockets.Justia.com § 2255 motion may not be filed prior to sentencing); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (indicating that the statute applies to “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court ....”) (emphasis added). 1 An appropriate Order follows. _____ s/ Stanley R. Chesler_______ STANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge Dated: December 16, 2014 As Petitioner’s litigation history indicates, his mental impediment has greatly affected his litigation practices. Hence, any sanction against him in connection with his repeat filings appears unwarranted. See Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 446 F. App’x 394, 400, n.4 (3d Cir. 2011) (directing an examination of the “record before this Court as to [the litigant’s] mental health [as a source of] explanation for his actions in this proceeding, or in [his] other proceedings”). 1 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.