United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
SYED SAADET ALI FARA SHAH REG. # 90280-022
CALVIN JOHNSON ET AL.
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Syed
Saadet Ali Fara Shah. Shah is an inmate in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).
pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute
heroin and hashish, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a) and 846, and one count of providing material support
to terrorists, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. United States v. Shah, No. 3:02-cr-2912,
doc. 110 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2006). On September 25, 2006, he
was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 225
months and 180 months, respectively. Id. at doc.
153. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed Shah's conviction and sentence. Id. at
doc. 180. On January 4, 2010, Shah filed a pro se motion to
vacate in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at
doc. 184. That motion was dismissed by the district court as
untimely, but the Ninth Circuit remanded the case with
instructions that Shah be given an opportunity to demonstrate
that his motion was timely filed. Id. at docs. 185,
195. The district court received briefing on the timeliness
of the § 2255 motion and ultimately ordered a response
from the government. See Id. at doc. 210. Shah also
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. See Id. at docs. 212, 214.
The district court then denied all of Shah's
post-conviction motions, finding no merit to his ineffective
assistance claims or any of his other claims for relief.
Id. at doc. 237. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision. Id. at doc. 247.
now seeks relief in this court through a habeas petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. He maintains that
he is entitled to relief because 1) he was not afforded any
representation in his § 2255 proceedings, 2) his current
place of confinement, FCIO, lacks an Institution Hearing
Program,  and 3) FCIO contains “[d]eplorable
living conditions” and inmates are denied forms for
administrative remedies. Doc. 1. In relief, he asks that the
court reopen his § 2255 proceeding and appoint counsel
for him, and instruct the appropriate immigration authorities
to make a determination as to his immigration status so that
he does not “languish in immigration detention”
after completing his sentence. Id. at 8.
Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions
district court may apply any or all of the rules governing
habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those
filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states
that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at
Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition
must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real
possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at
Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v.
Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly,
we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine
whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the
petition must be dismissed.