King v. Holt , 153 F. App'x 873 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-9-2005
King v. Holt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3678
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"King v. Holt" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 241.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/241
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-20 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3678
________________
DARNELL KING,
Appellant
v.
RONALD R. HOLT
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00709 )
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 20, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 9, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Darnell King appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The background of this case and the details of King’s
claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s opinion, and need
not be discussed at length. In his petition, King alleged that his 210 month sentence for
extortion was unconstitutionally enhanced by prior state court convictions. The District
Court dismissed the petition, and King filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. King’s § 2241 petition may not be
entertained unless a motion under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Previous unsuccessful § 2255 motions are not
sufficient to show that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. Litterio v. Parker,
369 F.2d 395, 396 (3d Cir. 1966); See also In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.
1997). We agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over King’s petition.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District
Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s July 20, 2005 order. See Third
Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
2