Leonard Henry v. United Sates Attorney General , 525 F. App'x 67 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • GLD-213                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-2746
    ___________
    LEONARD HENRY,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL;
    WARDEN, USP CANAAN
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 3-12-cv-00879)
    District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action
    Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    April 25, 2013
    Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: May 2, 2013)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Leonard Henry, proceeding pro se, appeals the United States District Court for the
    Middle District of Pennsylvania’s order dismissing Henry’s petition for a writ of habeas
    corpus pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    . Because this appeal does not present a substantial
    question, we will summarily affirm for principally the same reasons as given by the
    District Court.
    I.
    Following a jury trial in 1994 in the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of Florida, Henry was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
    cocaine and various firearm charges stemming from a conspiracy to rob a shipment of
    cocaine from Colombian drug dealers in Miami. Henry was sentenced to life
    imprisonment, a concurrent term of 120 months, and a consecutive term of 30 years. The
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Henry’s conviction and
    sentence in September 1999. Henry filed a motion pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     in
    February 2001. In the motion, Henry raised eighteen claims based on ineffective
    assistance of trial counsel, trial court errors, lack of jurisdiction, and defective
    indictments. The Southern District of Florida denied Henry’s § 2255 motion because
    some claims were procedurally defaulted and the remainder lacked merit. Henry’s appeal
    was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees.
    Henry filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus in May 2012 in the
    United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his petition,
    Henry sought relief alleging that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and that
    his previous claims were not fully and fairly considered at trial, on direct appeal, and
    during postconviction relief proceedings resulting in a violation of due process and other
    constitutional violations. Henry argued that due to those errors and violations, he is
    2
    entitled to relief under § 2241. The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack
    of jurisdiction because Henry failed to show that 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     afforded an
    inadequate or ineffective remedy that would permit Henry to challenge his conviction and
    sentence through § 2241. Henry appeals.
    II.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253(a). We “exercise
    plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous
    standard to its findings of facts.” O’Donald v. Johns, 
    402 F.3d 172
    , 173 n.1 (3d Cir.
    2005). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d
    Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
    III.
    Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Henry’s
    § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. A federal prisoner’s collateral challenge to the
    legality of his conviction and sentence must be raised in a § 2255 motion, except where
    the remedy under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    ; see In
    re Dorsainvil, 
    119 F.3d 245
    , 249 (3d Cir. 1997). A remedy is inadequate or ineffective
    “only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would
    prevent” the petitioner from receiving adequate adjudication of his claims. Cradle v.
    United States ex rel. Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir. 2002). The remedy’s inefficacy,
    rather than a prisoner’s inability to use it, is determinative. 
    Id.
     This exception is
    3
    extremely narrow and applies only in rare circumstances. See Dorsainvil, 199 F.3d at
    251-52.
    The fact that Henry previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied, and thus
    faces the strict gatekeeping requirements that apply to second or successive § 2255
    motions, does not serve to make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See id. at 251.
    Further, Henry’s argument that his claims were “never given a full or fair hearing or
    consideration,” does not establish that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Cradle,
    
    290 F.3d at 538-39
    . To the extent that Henry alleged errors in his previous § 2255
    proceeding before the Southern District of Florida, any relief that he may have been
    entitled to due to an error in those proceedings should have been sought in an appeal to
    the Eleventh Circuit and not through § 2241. See, e.g. id.
    Finally, in response to the notice of possible summary action, Henry argues that
    the District Court erred by sua sponte dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction
    without giving him prior notice and an opportunity to respond. However, as noted by the
    District Court, federal courts are obligated to sua sponte identify jurisdictional defects.
    See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 
    429 U.S. 274
    , 278-79 (1977);
    Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 
    424 U.S. 737
    , 739-40 (1976). The District Court also
    noted that pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, made applicable to
    § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), dismissal without providing a petitioner an opportunity
    to respond is appropriate when it is clear from the face of the petition that jurisdiction is
    lacking. See Franklin v. Murphy, 
    745 F.2d 1221
    , 1226 (9th Cir. 1984). Consequently,
    4
    the District Court properly sua sponte dismissed Henry’s petition for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction and without prejudice to Henry seeking leave from the Eleventh
    Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    .
    IV.
    In short, Henry did not show that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
    Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing Henry’s § 2241 petition for lack
    of jurisdiction. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will
    summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Henry’s § 2241 petition for
    essentially the same reasons as set forth by the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4;
    I.O.P. 10.6.
    5