# MOSLEM v. WARDEN, F.C.I. FORT DIX

> District Court, D. New Jersey · September 29, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277621

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** September 29, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277621

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SAAED MOSLEM,
Petitioner, Civil Action No, 23-6112 (SMW)
Vv.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
WARDEN, F.C... FORT DIX,
Respondent.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6) filed by
Petitioner pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) challenging the dismissal of his habeas
petition for want of habeas jurisdiction. The scope of a motion for reconsideration of a final
judgment brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) is extremely limited. See Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d
397, 415 Gd Cir, 2011). A Rule 59(e) motion may be employed “only to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Jd “‘Accordingly, a judgment may be
altered or amended [only] if the party secking reconsideration shows at least one of the following
grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court [decided the motion], or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.’” Jd. (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v.

. Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.2d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)). In this context, manifest injustice “generally
means that the Court overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to
it,” or that a “direct, obvious, and observable” error occurred, See Brown v. Zickefoose, Civil
Action No. 11-3330, 2011 WL 5007829, at *2, n. 3 (D.N.J. 2011).
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner submits that the Court should undo the
dismissal of his habeas petition and reconsider his challenge to his BOP classification level

because he believes he would have been released into home confinement already had he been
“properly” classified, a point essentially argued in the original petition. Petitioner provides no
other legal basis for reconsideration, nor does he point to any mistake of law or facts in this Court’s
dismissal of his petition. Petitioner’s belief that he may have been released had he had a lower
classification level, however, is immaterial. As this Court explained to Petitioner in dismissing
his petition,
In this matter, Petitioner seeks challenge his prison security
classification level, arguing that he should be entitled to a lower
classification level and a prion transfer. Habeas jurisdiction under
§ 2241, however, generally exists only to permit challenges to the
fact or duration of an individual’s confinement, or challenges to the
execution of the terms ofa prison sentence. See, e.g., Butler y. Ortiz,
No. 20-10421, 2022 WL 320672 at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2022).
Challenges fo even erroneous security factor decisions and resulting
custody classification levels are not cognizable under the statute as
they do not go to the fact or duration of confinement, nor do they
challenge an aspect of the execution of an imposed sentence.
see also Briley vy. Warden Fort Dix FCT, 703 F. App’x 69, 71 (d
Cir, 2017) (claims asserting improper security factors and resulting
higher security classification levels “are not cognizable in a § 2241
petition because [they do] not challenge the basic fact or duration of
... imprisonment” or the execution of a sentence), As Petitioner’s
claims in this matter seek only to challenge his security factors and
resulting prison classification, his challenges are not cognizable in
this habeas matter, and his petition must be dismissed for lack of
habeas jurisdiction as a result. Briley, 703 F, App’x at 71.
(ECF No. 4 at 2-3.) As explained, this Court lacks habeas jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s
challenge to his safety factors or classification level, and the dismissal of his petition was therefore
entirely proper. Petitioner has therefore failed to show any valid basis for reconsideration, and his
motion (ECF No. 6) is denied.
AE
IT IS THEREFORE on this IW day of September, 2023,
ORDERED that the Cierk of the Court shall re-open this matter for the purposes of this
Order only; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner’s reconsideration motion (ECF No. 6) is DENIED; and it is
finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by
regular mail, and shall CLOSE the file.

bof
Pope
Tlo . Karen M. Williams,
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10277621. Public record. Not legal advice.