Ross v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAESHAUN P. ROSS,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-2387
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is an application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis ("IFP Application") and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. §2241 filed by prose Petitioner Raeshaun P. Ross ("Ross").
For the 	reasons 	stated 	below, the Court will 	grant the 	IFP Application,
dismiss the petition, and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2023, Ross was sentenced to forty-six (46) months of
federal 	incarceration 	after 	pleading 	guilty 	to 	one 	(1) 	count 	of felon 	in
possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(1 ), 924(a)(2))
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. See (Doc.
1 at 1); United States v. Ross, No. 22-cr-00139 (N.D. Ohio), ECF No. 22.
Ross did 	not file a direct appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals;
however, he did file an unopposed motion to reduce his sentence under 18
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 9

U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) on February 14 , 2024. See id. , ECF No. 25. The following
day, the Northern District of Ohio granted Ross's motion and reduced his
sentence to thirty-seven (37) months' incarceration. See id., ECF No. 26.
On July 25, 2025, Ross filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255 in which he argued that, inter a/ia ,
(1) 	his Section 	922(g)(1) conviction 	violated 	his 	constitutional 	rights 	as
recogn ized by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and (2) President Donald J.
Trump's Executive Order No. 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights)
warranted vacating his Section 922(g)(1) conviction . See id ., ECF No. 30 at
4-8 . The Northern District of Ohio denied the motion as time-barred 	on
September 8, 2025. 	See id. , ECF No. 	33. 	Ross did not appeal from this
denial. Instead , he filed a "Motion to Dismiss 922(g)(1 )" on October 15, 2025,
see id., ECF No. 34, which the Northern District of Ohio denied a day later.
See id., ECF No. 35 .
Ross commenced the instant action by filing his Section 2241 habeas
petition, which the Clerk of Court docketed on December 11 , 2025. (Doc. 1.)
In his petition , Ross seeks an order vacating his Section 922(g)(1) conviction
- 2 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 9

pursuant to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Range v. Garland,
124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) and Executive Order No. 14206. (Id. at 1-3.)1
When Ross filed his habeas petition, he neither remitted the filing fee
nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; as such, an Administrative
Order issued requiring him to either pay the fee or apply for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) In response to this Administrative Order, Ross
timely filed 	his IFP Application 	along with 	a prisoner trust fund 	account
statement. (Docs. 4, 5.) However, Ross's prison account statement was not
certified 	as 	required 	by 	the 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	statute, 	see 	28 	U.S.C.
§1915(a)(2) ("A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action without prepayment
of fees .. . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement
(or 	institutional 	equivalent) 	for 	the 	prisoner 	for 	the 	6-month 	period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint ... , obtained from the
appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.");
accordingly, two 	Administrative 	Orders 	issued 	requiring 	the 	Warden 	at
Ross's place of confinement (United States Penitentiary Canaan) to submit
his certified account statement. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) The Clerk of Court docketed
two copies of Ross's certified account statement on February 2, 2026, and
1 Ross asserts that Executive Order No. 14206 "states all firearm and
ammunition cases must be dismissed, and that all convictions for felony
possession of a firearm/ammunition must be vacated. " (Doc. 1 at 2.)
- 3 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 9

February 5, 2026. (Docs. 8, 9.) Thus , Ross's IFP Application and Section
2241 petition are ripe for review.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Applications for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§1915(a)(1 ), a district court 	"may 	authorize 	the
commencement . .. of any [civil] suit, ... without prepayment of fees or
security therefor, by 	a person who 	submits 	an 	affidavit that includes a
statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to
pay such fees or give security therefor. " Id. This statute
" is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful
access to the federal courts ." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324, 	109 	S.Ct. 	1827, 	104 	L.Ed.2d 	338 	(1989). 	Specifically,
Congress enacted the statute to ensure that administrative court
costs and filing fees, both of which must be paid by everyone
else who files a lawsuit, would not prevent indigent persons from
pursuing meaningful litigation. [Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d
1080, 1084 (3d Cir. 1995)]. Toward this end , §1915(a) allows a
litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in
forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, among
other things, that [they are] unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827.
Douris 	v. 	Middletown 	Twp ., 	293 	F. App'x 	130, 	131-32 	(3d 	Cir. 	2008)
(unpublished).
B. 	Screening of Habeas Petitions
District courts are obligated to screen habeas petitions pursuant to
Ru le 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
- 4 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 9

District Courts. See R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 ("The clerk must promptly
forward the petition to a judge under the court's assignment procedure, and
the court must promptly examine it."). Rule 4 may be applied in habeas cases
brought under Section 2241. See R. 1(b), 28 U.S.C. foll.§ 2254 ("The district
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not
covered by Rule 1(a)). "). "[A] district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas]
petition summarily when it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court." 	Lonchar v. 	Thomas, 	517 U.S. 	314, 	320 (1996); 	see a/so
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized
to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on
its face.").
C. 	Section 2241 Habeas Petitions
Section 2241 	confers federal jurisdiction over a habeas petition that
has been filed 	by 	a federal 	inmate challenging 	"not the validity but the
execution of [their] sentence." Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 	F.3d 533, 535 (3d
Cir. 	2012) 	(citations 	and 	footnote 	omitted); 	Woodall 	v. 	Fed. Bureau 	of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that Section 2241 "allows
a federal prisoner to challenge the 'execution' of his sentence in habeas").
While "the precise meaning of 'execution of the sentence' is hazy[,]" the
- 5 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 9

phrase has been interpreted as to "put into effect" or "carry out." Woodall,
432 F.3d at 242, 243 (citation omitted). As a result, a federal inmate may
challenge conduct undertaken by the BOP that affects the duration of the
inmate's custody. See, e.g., Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d
Cir. 1990) (finding that a federal inmate's Section 2241 petition is actionable
where the inmate attacks the term of their custody by challenging the way
the BOP is computing their federal sentence).
Ill. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	The IFP Application
After reviewing the IFP Application and Ross's account statement, it
appears that he lacks the financial means to prepay the filing fee in this
matter. Therefore, the Court will grant the IFP Application and allow Ross to
proceed in forma pauperis in this habeas action.
B. 	Screening of Ross's Section 2241 Habeas Petition
Federal prisoners such as Ross seeking post-conviction relief from
their judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed are generally required
to 	bring their collateral challenges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. 	See 28
U.S.C. §2255(e); Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)
("Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 are the presumptive means by which
federal 	prisoners 	can 	challenge their convictions 	or sentences that are
- 6 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 9

allegedly in violation of the Constitution. " (citing Davis v. United States, 417
U.S. 333, 343 (1974)). Federal prisoners may only challenge their conviction
through 	a 	Section 	2241 	habeas 	petition 	if 	a 	Section 	2255 	motion 	is
"inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [their] detention." 28 U.S.C.
§2255(e); see also Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 474 (2023) (explaining
that in enacti ng Section 2255 "Congress generally barred federal prisoners
'authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to' §2255 from applying 'for
a writ of habeas corpus' under §2241 [, but it]preserved the habeas remedy
in cases where 'the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of [a prisoner' s] detention "' (second alteration in original) (quoting 28
U.S.C . §2255(e))).
To 	demonstrate 	that 	a 	Section 	2255 	motion 	is 	"inadequate 	or
ineffective ," 	the 	Section 	2241 	habeas 	petitioner must 	show "that 	some
limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a §2255 proceeding from
affording [them] a full hearing and adjudication of [their] wrongful detention
claim ." Cradle v. U. S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per
curiam). 	Significantly, Section 2255 " is not inadequate or ineffective merely
because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute of
limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gatekeepi ng requirements of . .. §2255 ." Id. at 539 (emphasis added). "It is
- 7 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 9

the inefficacy of the [Section 2255] remedy, not the personal inability to utilize
it, that is determinative." Id. at 538 .
Here, 	Ross 	seeks 	habeas corpus 	relief pursuant to 	Section 	2241
based 	on 	the 	purported 	invalidity 	of 	his 	Section 	922(g)(1) 	conviction.
Through this claim , Ross clearly challenges the legality of his conviction , and
he 	has not shown, 	or even argued, that Section 2255 	is 	inadequate or
ineffective to adjudicate his claim . Thus, Ross must present his claims in a
Section 2255 motion in the sentencing court, i.e ., the Northern District of
Ohio, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide his petition. 2 Accordingly,
because Ross's claim is not cognizable in a Section 2241 	habeas corpus
petition , 	the 	Court 	will 	dismiss 	his 	petition 	for 	lack 	of 	subject-matter
jurisdiction. 3
2 As stated above, Ross already filed a Section 2255 motion on similar
(if not identical) grounds, which the Northern District of Ohio denied as time
barred.
3 Even if there was jurisdiction to consider Ross's contention that
Executive Order No . 14206 entitles him to habeas relief, the Court would
deny his motion because he misrepresents the contents of the Executive
Order. It contains 	no 	language requiring the dismissal of possession 	of
firearms and ammunition convictions . See, e.g., Ford v. United States, No.
25-cv-00098, 2025 WL 2661515, at *3 (D . Utah Sept. 17, 2025) (rejecting
Section 2255 movant's argument that he was entitled to habeas relief based
on Executive Order 14206, and explaining that this Executive Order "simply
tells the Attorney General to look over federal actions from 2021 to 2025 that
might have affected Second Amendment rights and come up with a plan to
{footnote continued on next page)
- 8 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 9

IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant the IFP Application,
dismiss without prejudice Ross's Section 2241 	petition for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, 	and 	direct the Clerk of Court to close this case. 	An
appropriate Order follows.
DATE:
25-2387- 01
ates District Judge
address them" (citing Exec. Order No. 14206, 90 Fed. Reg. 9503 (Feb. 12,
2025))), recons. denied, 2025 WL 3672796 (D. Utah Dec. 17, 2025). Instead,
it expressly states that it "is not intended to, and does not, create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its
officers, employees, or agents, or any other person ." Exec. Order No. 14206,
90 Fed. Reg. 9504.
- 9 -
Case 3:25-cv-02387-MEM-SH Document 10 Filed 02/09/26 Page 9 of 9