Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-9-2007
Griffin v. Hogsten
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2937
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Griffin v. Hogsten" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 227.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/227
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-30 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2937
WILLIE J. GRIFFIN,
Appellant
v.
KAREN HOGSTEN,
Warden FCI Allenwood (Medium)
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. PA. Civ. No. 07-cv-00676)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 25, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: November 9, 2007)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Willie J. Griffin, a federal inmate housed at FCI-Allenwood in Pennsylvania,
appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. In 1999, Griffin was convicted after a jury trial in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He
was sentenced to serve 252 months in prison. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed. Griffin filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the
sentencing court denied. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a
certificate of appealability and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Griffin
then sought, in separate motions, a writ of error coram nobis, relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), all of which the sentencing court denied. Griffin has not applied to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second or successive § 2255
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
On April 11, 2007, Griffin filed this § 2241 petition asserting that the sentencing
court wrongly enhanced his sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on his prior
conviction in state court for possession of cocaine, in violation of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He claims that his state court conviction should have been
treated as a misdemeanor, not a felony, under the reasoning in Lopez v. Gonzales, 127
S.Ct. 625 (2006) (holding that a state felony conviction for a drug offense that is treated
as a misdemeanor under the federal Controlled Substances Act does not constitute an
2
“aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act). Griffin alleged that he
filed a § 2241 petition because he had no other available means to challenge the
constitutionality of his conviction.
The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction 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 Rule 1(b)), and
later denied Griffin’s motion for reconsideration. Griffin timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. As the District Court properly
stated, 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 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.
Griffin cannot show that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge the
legality of his detention. The “safety valve” provided under § 2255 does not apply in
3
Griffin’s case. The safety valve provision 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).
Griffin claims that he should not have been found guilty based on an allegedly defective
indictment. He falls far short of asserting, and we find nothing in this record to indicate,
that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. The exception
identified in In re Dorsainvil is simply inapplicable, and Griffin is not entitled to seek
relief under § 2241.
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. Griffin’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
4