Dudley v. Nash , 200 F. App'x 80 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-19-2006
Dudley v. Nash
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2195
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Dudley v. Nash" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 312.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/312
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-328 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 06-2195
________________
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY,
Appellant
v.
JOHN NASH,
Warden F.C.I. Fort Dix
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01495)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
____________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 8, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 19, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Sean Dudley appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his § 2241 petition for
lack of jurisdiction. In 1997, Dudley pled guilty in the District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to 360
months in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. In 1999, Dudley
filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which the sentencing court denied. In 2005,
Dudley filed the instant § 2241 petition in which he argued that there was an insufficient
basis for his guilty plea. The District Court dismissed the petition and denied Dudley’s
subsequent motion for reconsideration. Dudley filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Dudley’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). The District Court was correct in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction
over the 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 judgment. See Third Circuit I.O.P.
10.6.
2