Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2007
Williams v. Miner
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5021
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Williams v. Miner" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 969.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/969
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.
HLD-106 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5021
________________
DERRICK WILLIAMS,
Appellant
vs.
WARDEN MINER
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. PA. Civ. No. 06-cv-02242)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 1, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, CHIEF JUDGE, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
Filed: (June 8, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his habeas petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm.
1
In 1995, Williams pleaded guilty to drug and firearms offenses in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Williams was
sentenced to 270 months in prison, to be followed by a period of supervised release. This
Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See C.A. No. 96-2107. Williams
thereafter filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
District Court in June 1999. The District Court denied the motion, and we declined to
issue Williams a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 00-2934. The District Court
also denied Williams’ subsequent motion for a modification of his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Once again, this Court affirmed. See C.A. No. 02-2540. We also
denied a request by Williams for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See C.A. No. 04-1451.
In 2004, Williams returned to the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and filed yet another motion to vacate sentence under § 2255. The District
Court transferred the motion to this Court to be treated as a request under 28 U.S.C. §
2244 for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. We denied
authorization a second time. See 05-4396. Williams then filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, which the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Having concluded that the District Court did not err in dismissing Williams’ § 2241
2
petition, we dismissed his appeal from that decision as lacking merit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See C.A. No. 06-2760.
Undeterred, Williams returned to the District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania in November 2006 and filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his conviction and sentence were “executed
and prosecuted” in violation of federal statutes and the United States Constitution and that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As with Williams’ first § 2241 petition, the
District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition and dismissed
it accordingly. This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For essentially the
same reasons set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the order of
dismissal.
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 a prior motion has been unsuccessful or
3
because Williams has been unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements for
filing a second or successive § 2255 motion under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21. See also Cradle, 290
F.3d at 539.
The “safety valve” provided under § 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
because of an intervening change in the law. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). Such is not the case here. Williams makes no allegation
that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted. He merely asserts a
spin off of the “federalism” claim that was presented in his original § 2255 motion. The
exception identified in In re Dorsainvil is simply inapplicable, and Williams may not
evade the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 by seeking relief under § 2241.
Because the § 2241 petition was properly dismissed and no substantial
question is presented by this appeal, the District Court’s order of dismissal entered on
November 28, 2006 will be affirmed. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
4