United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH REG. # 20515-112
UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEE 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 Julian
Okeayainneh. Okeayainneh is an inmate in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Oakdale, Louisiana. This matter has been referred to the
undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
the standing orders of this court.
challenges his 2012 conviction in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, of bank fraud, wire
fraud, identity theft, and related charges. Doc. 1; see
United States v. Okeayainneh et al., No. 0:11-cr-0087(1)
(D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2012).
appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Okeayainneh's
conviction but found that a sentencing enhancement had been
misapplied and remanded the case for resentencing. United
States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2014).
Okeayainneh sought relief through a § 2255 motion and
other pro se motions collaterally attacking his conviction,
filed in the District of Minnesota, which the court denied.
United States v. Okeayainneh, 2015 WL 13358236 (D.
Minn. Dec. 21, 2015). He also appealed his new sentence to
the Eighth Circuit, which denied relief on September 9, 2016.
United States v. Okeayainneh, 668 Fed. App'x 681
(8th Cir. 2016). Okeayainneh then filed a second § 2255
motion and other collateral attacks on his conviction in the
trial court, which denied same on August 1, 2018.
Okeayainneh, No. 0:11-cr-0087(1), at doc. 1256.
Okeayainneh appealed the court's ruling to the Eighth
Circuit, which denied a certificate of appealability and
dismissed the appeal on December 21, 2018. Id. at
doc. 1276. Most recently, Okeayainneh filed two
“Motions to Take Notice of Adjudicative Facts” in
the trial court in January 2019, which are still pending.
Id. at docs. 1277, 1279. He also filed a civil
rights suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the United States
Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on FOIA
requests he had issued to those agencies. Okeayainneh v.
U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 3:18-cv-1195 (N.D. Tex.).
That suit is still pending. Id.
now alleges that the trial court has vacated his restitution
judgment and that this decision functionally invalidates his
conviction of bank fraud because it contradicts the
jury's determination that there was a loss to the victim.
Doc. 1. Accordingly, he seeks to have his conviction and
sentence vacated. Id.
Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions
district court may apply any and 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.