Solomon Manamela v. Warden Fort Dix FCI ( 2020 )

CLD-212 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-3924
___________
SOLOMON MANAMELA,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-09292)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 28, 2020
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and MATEY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 11, 2020)
__________
OPINION *
__________
PER CURIAM
Solomon Manamela appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his petition filed
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will
grant the Appellee’s motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Manamela was convicted in 2010 of “wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343,
health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and conspiracy, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371.” United States v. Manamela, 463 F. App’x 127, 130 (3d Cir. 2012). He
was sentenced to 168 months in prison. Id. at 131. We affirmed the judgment and
sentence on appeal. Id. at 136. Manamela filed an unsuccessful motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After granting a certificate of
appealability on one issue, we affirmed the District Court’s judgment. United States v.
Manamela, 612 F. App’x 151, 157 (3d Cir. 2015).
Manamela then filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 at issue here, raising three issues: (1) whether the court erred in deciding that
Manamela and his company were “liable for the death of Danieal Kelly” 1 because
another court in the same District dismissed her estate’s civil claims against his company;
(2) “[w]hether affirmative evidence exists to establish Congress’ intention under 18
U.S.C. § 24(b) to find non-medical community based child welfare service provider Title
IV-B subpart 2, (42 U.S.C. § 629(a)(2)[)] under the Act guilty of health care fraud”; and
(3) whether the court erred in denying him discovery and an evidentiary hearing
1
As the District Court noted, Manamela was never found “liable for the death” of
anyone—he was convicted of fraud offenses.
2
concerning Brady materials allegedly withheld by the prosecution. Dkt. #1 at 16. 2 The
District Court granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction, and Manamela appealed. The Appellee has moved to summarily affirm the
District Court’s order. 3
The District Court correctly dismissed Manamela’s petition. “Motions pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge
their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution.”
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner can seek
relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Cradle v. United States ex rel.
Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). The “inadequate or ineffective” exception is
narrow and does not apply simply because a petitioner cannot meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255. Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (quoting In
re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997)).
To date, we have recognized only one situation where the exception applies:
where a court’s subsequent statutory interpretation renders the defendant’s conduct no
longer criminal and he did not have an earlier opportunity to raise the claim. Bruce v.
2
Although Manamela was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, he filed his § 2241 petition in New Jersey, as he was confined at
a prison there at the time of filing.
3
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Our review of the District
Court's legal conclusions is plenary. See Cordaro v. United States, 933 F.3d 232, 241 (3d
3
Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 180 (3d Cir. 2017); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at
251. But Manamela’s claims are not based on any new statutory interpretation that
would render his actions non-criminal, nor does he present any other unusual
circumstance that would render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. The District Court thus
lacked jurisdiction to consider Manamela’s § 2241 petition.
Because Manamela’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
Cir. 2019).
4