Fombe v. Warden of FMC Devens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
NJUH VALENTINE FOMBE, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-CV-10578-AK
)
WARDEN, FMC DEVENS, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
KELLEY, D.J.
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner Njuh Valentine Fombe, an inmate serving a federal
sentence at the Federal Medical Center, Devens (“FMC Devens”), filed a pro se Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. See Fombe v. Warden
of FMC Devens, No. 25-CV-04300 (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2025) [Dkt. 1]. On January 20, 2026,
Fombe filed a Petition for Default which was entered on the docket as a Supplement to the
Petition. Id. at Dkt. 2. On February 4, 2026, the Petition, which was originally construed as a
Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was withdrawn from his underlying criminal
case and reclassified as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at Fombe’s request. Id. at Dkt. 4.
The case was also ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Id. at Dkt. 4. On February 5, 2026, the matter was randomly assigned to this Court. [Dkt. 6].
For the reasons set forth below, Fombe’s [Dkt. 1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DENIED.
Fombe’s Petition has not been served pending the Court’s preliminary review of the
pleading. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (providing that, if “it appears from the application [for a writ of
Case 1:26-cv-10578-AK Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
habeas corpus] that the applicant . . . is not entitled [to the writ],” the district court is not required
to serve the petition on the respondent).1
Here, Fombe claims that “the originating Court violated the Petitioner’s unalienable right
of due process protected under the 5th Amendment, violated the Petitioners’ unalienable right of
an untainted Grand and/or Petit Jury protected under U.S. Const Art. 3 SEC 2; 5th and 6th
Amendment, Violated the Petitioner’s unalienable right to be heard in a Common law Court,
Violated the affirmative obligation which cannot be waived by neither party to a Case, imposed
by Article 3 Section 2 of the United States of America Constitution that Mandates ‘the trial of all
crime . . . ‘Shall’ be Jury, and proceeded by summary judgments which evidences it was not a
Court of Record.” [Dkt. 1 at 1]. Fombe seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and
2243. [Id. at 2].
A search of the electronic records of the United States Courts shows that Fombe was
indicted in the District of Maryland and pleaded guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349
(conspiracy to commit wire fraud), 1956(h) (conspiracy to commit money laundering), and
1028A (aggravated identify theft). See United States v. Fombe, 19-CR-00452-DKC-1.2 He was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 144 months, consisting of 120 months concurrent on
1 The rules governing Section 2254 cases may be applied at the discretion of the district court to
other types of habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the Court is required to
examine a petition, and if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” the Court “must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4; see McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856
(1994) (habeas petition may be dismissed if it appears to be legally insufficient on its face).
2 The Court takes judicial notice of these proceedings. See Wiener v. MIB Grp., Inc., 86 F.4th
76, 81 n.3 (1st Cir. 2023) (“It is well-accepted that federal courts may take judicial notice of
proceedings in other courts if those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.” (quoting
Law Offs. of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer L. Firm, 782 F.3d 46, 56 n.7 (1st Cir. 2015))).
Case 1:26-cv-10578-AK Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Count 1 and 2, and a consecutive 24 months on Count 3. Id. On December 15, 2025, the Fourth
Circuit affirmed Fombe’s conviction. See United States v. Fombe, No. 24-4271 (4th Cir. Dec.
15, 2025).
Here, Fombe’s Petition does not set forth a basis for relief in this Court. Although the
district court has the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus if a prisoner is in custody “in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241, caselaw
is clear that the proper vehicle for a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction and/or sentence
is through a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with the sentencing court. “Congress enacted
28 U.S.C. § 2255 as a substitute for the traditional habeas remedy with respect to federal
prisoners.” Ramos-Martinez v. United States, 638 F.3d 315, 320 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting
Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85, 96 (1st Cir. 2008)). Thus, a federal prisoner cannot
challenge the legality of his sentence through an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 unless it appears that a motion under § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This “savings clause” is construed
very narrowly. See Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023).
Because Fombe was sentenced in the District of Maryland, he cannot seek relief under
§ 2255 in this Court and the Court takes no position whether Fombe could or should seek relief
under § 2255. Fombe has not shown that a motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention. In fact, Fombe simply states that he seeks to bring this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and 2243, and he has not addressed the restrictions on filing
§ 2255 petitions.
In light of all the above, the Court finds that the instant case seeks § 2255 relief through a
§ 2241 petition, and that § 2255 is not an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of
Case 1:26-cv-10578-AK Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Petitioner’s detention. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s habeas
challenges under § 2241.
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2026 	/s/ Angel Kelley
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10578-AK Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 4