United States v. Harris , 190 F. App'x 110 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-3-2006
    USA v. Harris
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-1714
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Harris" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 616.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/616
    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.
    HPS-84                                                       NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 06-1714
    ________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    vs.
    VERNON HARRIS
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Crim. No. 95-cr-00393)
    District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz
    _______________________________________
    Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    July 14, 2006
    Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: August 3, 2006)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM.
    In 1996, Vernon Harris was convicted of drug and weapon offenses in the
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was sentenced
    to life imprisonment. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. See United States v.
    Harris, C.A. No. 96-2002.
    In 1998, Harris filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    . The District Court denied relief, and this Court denied a certificate of
    appealability. United States v. Harris, C.A. No. 99-1148. Harris subsequently filed
    another motion in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting relief under Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which was denied. Harris then filed a motion to amend his
    initial § 2255 motion. The sentencing court again denied relief, and this Court denied a
    certificate of appealability. See Harris v. United States, C.A. No. 01-1278. In March
    2003, Harris filed a pleading titled “Petition for Independent Action” in the United States
    District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to have his judgment of conviction
    dismissed pursuant to Rule 60(b). The District Court construed the pleading as a petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , and dismissed it as such, finding
    that Harris had not demonstrated that a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     was inadequate or ineffective to challenge his conviction. We dismissed
    the appeal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B). See Harris v. United States, C.A. No. 04-
    1967.
    In December 2005, Harris filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    another “Petition for Independent Action” attacking his conviction. The District Court
    denied the “Petition” and Harris appealed.
    A person convicted in federal court is required to bring any collateral
    challenge to his conviction or sentence by way of a § 2255 motion filed in the court
    which imposed the sentence, unless such a motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to
    2
    test the legality of his detention.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     ¶¶ 1, 5; Okereke v. United States,
    
    307 F.3d 117
    , 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective” only if
    a “limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording
    [the petitioner] a full hearing and adjudication” of his claims. Okereke, 
    307 F.3d at 120
    .
    Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court
    previously denied relief under § 2255 or because the petitioner is unable to meet the
    stringent gatekeeping requirements for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion.
    Cradle v. United States, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 539 (3d Cir. 2002).
    According to the government’s response to Harris’ “Petition,” his current
    claims merely repeat those presented in his prior § 2255 motion. Harris can not
    demonstrate that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to raise these claims. Thus, Harris
    may bring his claims only in a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court. Under these
    circumstances, the District Court correctly dismissed Harris’ “Petition.”
    Because this appeal presents us with no substantial question, see I.O. P.
    10.6, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1714

Citation Numbers: 190 F. App'x 110

Filed Date: 8/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023