Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-26-2008
Clark v. Sneizek
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4490
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Clark v. Sneizek" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1522.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1522
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-60 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4490
CRAIG J. CLARK,
Appellant
v.
T.R. SNEIZEK
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civil No. 07-cv-01179)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 30, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 26, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Craig Clark, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will grant Appellee’s motion for
summary affirmance of the District Court’s order.
In 1994, Clark pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire to conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by threats or violence
and interference with interstate commerce by threats or violence. He was sentenced to
188 months in prison. On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit remanded the matter for re-sentencing. Clark received a 223-month prison
sentence on remand. The sentence was affirmed on appeal, and the United States
Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1996.
In 2005, Clark filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging the
enhancement of his sentence based on a finding of obstruction of justice. The district
court found the motion untimely and dismissed it. The First Circuit Court of Appeals
denied Clark’s request for a certificate of appealability.
Clark 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. Clark again
challenged the enhancement of his sentence, and claimed a violation of his due process
rights because he was not informed of the consequences of his plea.
As recognized by the District Court, motions under § 2255 are the presumptive
means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences on
constitutional grounds. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002).
2
Although a petitioner may challenge a conviction pursuant to § 2241 where a § 2255
motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a § 2255 motion is not inadequate or
ineffective merely because the sentencing court denied relief, the one-year statute of
limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the gatekeeping requirements
of § 2255. Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538-39 (3d Cir. 2002). A § 2255
motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the petitioner shows that some limitation
of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full
hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim. Id. at 538.
Clark has not made such a showing. Clark presents the same challenge to his
sentence that he raised in his time-barred § 2255 motion and attacks the validity of his
plea. Clark may not evade § 2255's gatekeeping requirements for filing a second or
successive motion to vacate his sentence by seeking relief under § 2241. Because Clark
already has filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to § 2255, the District Court
correctly determined that he must seek leave in the First Circuit Court of Appeals to file a
successive § 2255 motion challenging his conviction or sentence.
The District Court also properly denied Clark’s motion for reconsideration, in
which he argued that the District Court mischaracterized his claim. Although the District
Court did state in error that Clark claimed that he was actually innocent of his crime, this
3
mischaracterization did not affect the correctness of the District Court’s ultimate
conclusion that Clark’s claims are not cognizable under § 2241.1
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will
grant Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance and will affirm the judgment of the
District Court.
1
To the extent that the District Court reached the merits of Clark’s claims on
reconsideration or in its initial decision, we do not affirm the District Court’s decision on
this basis. We decide only that Clark’s claims are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition, and
that he must seek permission from the First Circuit Court of Appeals to pursue his claims
under § 2255.
4