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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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HPS-84 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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