Christopher Eubanks v. T. Sniezek ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • HLD-002                                                NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                     ___________
    
                                          No. 10-2806
                                          ___________
    
                                  CHRISTOPHER EUBANKS,
                                                   Appellant
                                           v.
    
                                  T.R. SNIEZEK, Warden
                          ____________________________________
    
                        On Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                                  (D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00905)
                        District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
                         ____________________________________
    
                     Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
                          Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                     October 29, 2010
             Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges
                             (Opinion filed: February 14, 2011)
                                         _________
    
                                           OPINION
                                           _________
    
    PER CURIAM.
    
                 Christopher Eubanks, proceeding pro se, appeals the order of the District
    
    Court dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal does not
    
    present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
    
    
                                                1
                                                 I
    
                  In 2006, Eubanks pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the
    
    Northern District of West Virginia to drug trafficking charges. He was sentenced to 63
    
    months’ imprisonment. In 2007, he filed in that District a motion to vacate his sentence
    
    under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was dismissed as time-barred. In the meantime, he
    
    filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. His sentence was reduced
    
    to 51 months’ imprisonment, based on amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines
    
    as they applied to crack cocaine offenses.
    
                  Then, in May 2009, Eubanks filed in the United States District Court for
    
    the Middle District of Pennsylvania a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the
    
    calculation of his original sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines – a claim he
    
    raised in his time-barred § 2255 motion. When Eubanks filed the petition, he was
    
    confined at Schuylkill Federal Prison Camp, Minersville, Pennsylvania, which is within
    
    the Middle District. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and
    
    Eubanks filed a timely notice of appeal.
    
                                                 II
    
                  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily
    
    affirm the District Court’s decision if Eubanks’s appeal does not present a substantial
    
    question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. IOP 10.6.
    
                  A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence
    
                                                 2
    must pursue collateral relief under § 2255 in the district court that imposed his sentence.
    
    See § 2255(a). “[U]nder the explicit terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless a § 2255 motion
    
    would be ‘inadequate or ineffective,’ a habeas corpus petition under § 2241 cannot be
    
    entertained” by a district court. Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538
    
    (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where
    
    the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a
    
    § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful
    
    detention claim.” Id. “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 gatekeeping requirements of the amended
    
    § 2255.” Id. at 539. In dismissing Eubanks’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, the District
    
    Court reasoned that Eubanks did not demonstrate that § 2255 was an inadequate or
    
    ineffective remedy. We are in full accord with the reasoning of the District Court.
    
                  Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
    
    
    
    
                                                  3
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 10-2806

Filed Date: 2/14/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014