Clarence Robinson v. B. A. Bledsoe ( 2012 )

ALD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4491
___________
CLARENCE J. ROBINSON, Appellant
v.
WARDEN B. A. BLEDSOE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-01203)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 24, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 13, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Clarence Robinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that
follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In 1996, Robinson was convicted in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. He appealed to the Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and both his conviction and sentence were affirmed.
United States v. Robinson, 110 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1997). In 1998, Robinson filed a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The
District Court denied his motion, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed once more. United
States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002). Since that time, Robinson has sought
habeas relief via numerous § 2255 motions, petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and
applications to the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Each was
denied or dismissed.
In June 2011, Robinson filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that his sentence was
enhanced by a prior conviction that did not occur—a claim he concedes has been raised
and rejected in his earlier habeas actions. The District Court construed his petition as a
second or successive § 2255 motion, and dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction.
See Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971). Robinson appealed. 1
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary means to collaterally
challenge a federal conviction or sentence. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d
Cir. 1997). A federal prisoner can seek relief from an unconstitutional sentence or
conviction under § 2241 if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner,
1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Our review of the
District Court's legal conclusions is plenary. See Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 262 (3d
Cir. 2000).
2
290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We have held that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective
where an intervening change in substantive law has potentially made the conduct for
which the petitioner was convicted non-criminal. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 248. Robinson
makes no allegation that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted;
rather he asserts only that his sentence was improperly calculated. The Dorsainvil
exception is inapplicable to such a claim, and relief under § 2241 is therefore unavailable.
See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). His claims should
therefore have been raised via a § 2255 motion in the District of Nebraska, his court of
conviction, and not in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2 See Galante, 437 F.2d at
1165; 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed the petition
for lack of jurisdiction.
Robinson’s appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm
the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
2
Robinson may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion without leave from the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). His present arguments
have already been raised in his various prior motions, and were rejected.
Accordingly, construing Robinson’s petition as one for leave to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion and transferring it to that Court would not be in the interest
of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
3