Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-21-2006
Deshields v. Smith
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3677
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Deshields v. Smith" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1232.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1232
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.
CPS-181 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3677
________________
WAJID DESHIELDS,
Appellant
v.
JOE SMITH, Warden, USP Lewisburg
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. PA. Civ. No. 05-cv-01266-RPC)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 30, 2006
Before: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 21, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Wajid Deshields appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing without prejudice his habeas petition
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 1651. In 2001, while serving a state sentence on
related charges, Deshields pled guilty in District Court to possession of a firearm in a
drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and was sentenced to sixty months
incarceration to run consecutively to the Pennsylvania sentence. Deshields did not
appeal. In March 2002, Deshields filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
claiming that his federal conviction violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy
Clause. The sentencing court denied § 2255 relief. Deshields did not appeal.
On June 22, 2005, Deshields filed a § 2241 petition asserting that his guilty plea
was not knowing and intelligent because he was not informed by the court or by counsel
of the elements of the firearm charge. Specifically, he contended that he was not made
aware that a conviction under § 924(c)(1) required proof that his firearm was actively
employed in drug trafficking. Deshields also claimed that the Department of Justice
should have exercised discretion under the “Petite Policy” and dismissed the indictment
because he had already been convicted in Pennsylvania on related charges and thus
federal prosecution was unnecessary. Acknowledging that he had not sought leave for
permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244,
Deshields asserted that he filed a § 2241 petition because he had no other available means
to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction. Alternatively, Deshields sought
coram nobis relief.
The District Court summarily dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977) (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to
2
Rule 1(b)), and later denied Deshields’s motion to alter judgment. Deshields timely
appealed. The appeal was terminated for failure to pay fees. Deshields has filed a motion
to re-open and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant both motions.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.1 In February 2006, the parties
were notified that the Court sua sponte may take summary action on an appeal if it
appears that no substantial question is presented or that subsequent precedent or change in
circumstances warrants such action. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.2 For essentially the
same reasons set forth by the District Court in its Order entered July 11, 2005, we will
summarily affirm.
As the District Court properly concluded, a § 2255 motion is the presumptive
means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence, unless
such a motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 5. A
§ 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only when “some limitation of scope or
procedure” prevents a movant from receiving an adjudication of his claim. Cradle v.
United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). “Section 2255 is not
inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the
1
No certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal the denial of this petition for
a writ of coram nobis. United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000).
2
Although the parties were advised that they could submit argument supporting or
opposing summary action, no responses have been filed.
3
one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Id. at 539.
Deshields admits that he has yet to apply for relief on his challenge to his sentence
by filing an application with this Court for permission to file a “second or successive” §
2255 motion. Moreover, the “safety valve” provided under section 2255 is extremely
narrow and has been held to apply in unusual situations such as those in which a prisoner
has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime later deemed to be
non-criminal by an intervening change in law. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). Such is not the case here. Deshields makes no allegation,
nor could he, that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. The
exception identified in In re Dorsainvil is simply inapplicable, and Deshields is not
entitled to seek relief under § 2241.
Coram nobis relief is an extraordinary remedy traditionally used to attack
convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer “in custody”
for § 2255 purposes. Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189. Because Deshields is still serving his
sentence of imprisonment, he is still “in custody” and, thus, the District Court correctly
held that coram nobis relief is not available to him.
Because the petition was properly dismissed and no substantial question is
presented by this appeal, the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed. See Third
Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
4