Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-25-2006
Benjamin v. Miner
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2245
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Benjamin v. Miner" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 553.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/553
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-2245
________________
TREVOR BENJAMIN,
Appellant
vs.
JONATHAN MINER, Warden
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00607)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 23, 2006
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT, and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed August 25, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Trevor Benjamin appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing a
petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As explained below, we will affirm.1
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; our review is plenary. Okereke v.
United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002).
Benjamin pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland to armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; he is
serving a sentence of 248 months’ imprisonment. On appeal Benjamin raised one issue
only, concerning the factual basis for the court’s restitution order. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated his sentence on that issue only and
remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Benjamin, 117 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir.
1997) (table). In 1999 Benjamin filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which
dismissed the petition with instructions to resubmit it as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the District of Maryland. Benjamin did so, but the motion was dismissed as
untimely.
In 2006 Benjamin filed another section 2241 petition in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the denial of his right
to a speedy trial deprived the court of jurisdiction to convict him. The District Court
dismissed the petition, explaining that the proper means of presenting such claims is a
section 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court, that Benjamin may resort to section
2241 only if section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, and that section 2255 was not
rendered inadequate or ineffective merely by Benjamin’s lack of success with his
previous section 2255 motion or by the restrictions on filing successive section 2255
motions. Citing Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002), the
2
court specifically rejected Benjamin’s argument that his jurisdictional challenge may be
brought at any time.
We fully concur with the District Court’s analysis. Benjamin must present
his claims through a section 2255 motion filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland; and because he has already filed such a motion, he must first obtain
permission from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3