Charles Smith v. Donna Zickefoose

DLD-032 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 12-3134
_________________
CHARLES SMITH,
Appellant
v.
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 1-12-cv-03270)
District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
____________________________________
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
November 8, 2012
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 11, 2012)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Charles Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey’s order dismissing Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question
we will summarily affirm for principally the same reasons as given in the District Court’s
order.
I.
In 2006, Smith pleaded guilty to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of
engaging in illicit sexual conduct. The United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania sentenced Smith to 120 months in prison and Smith appealed.
On February 26, 2008, this Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Smith did
not petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Smith is currently
imprisioned at Federal Correctional Institute Fort Dix in New Jersey.
On March 9, 2011, Smith filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In the motion, Smith argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he had newly
discovered evidence relating to his psychological problems and mental ability. The
District Court determined that the motion was untimely because it was filed outside the
one-year statute of limitations period, but granted the parties an opportunity to brief
whether equitable tolling should be granted. In response, Smith filed a motion for
reconsideration that the District Court construed as his brief addressing the timeliness
issue. The District Court, after review of Smith’s arguments, dismissed the § 2255
motion as untimely and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Smith moved for
reconsideration in May 2012, and the District Court, after explaining that Smith
essentially reasserted the same arguments as in his previous motion, denied relief in July
2012.
2
Smith filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 31, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In his petition Smith raised
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence relating to his
psychological and mental status, similar to those in his § 2255 motion. The District
Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Smith failed to show that 28
U.S.C. § 2255 afforded an inadequate or ineffective remedy that would then permit Smith
to challenge his conviction and sentence through 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Smith appealed and
the Clerk alerted the parties that the appeal was being considered for possible summary
action.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We “exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous
standard to its findings of facts.” O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir.
2005). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
III.
Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Smith’s
§ 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Apart from whether Smith’s petition was
successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), it is apparent that his claims are not viable
under § 2241.
3
A federal prisoner’s challenge to the legality of his conviction and sentence must
be raised in a § 2255 motion, except where the remedy under § 2255 would be
“inadequate or ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249
(3d Cir. 1997). This occurs “only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation
of scope or procedure would prevent” the petitioner from receiving adequate adjudication
of his or her claims. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). The
remedy’s inefficacy, rather than a prisoner’s inability to use it, is determinative. Id. The
exception is extremely narrow and applies only in rare circumstances. See, e.g.,
Dorsainvil, 199 F.3d at 251-52. The fact that Smith previously filed a § 2255 motion that
was denied as untimely, and thus faces the strict gatekeeping requirements that apply to
second or successive § 2255 motions, does not serve to make § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective. See id. at 251. Moreover, Smith’s assertion that his mental and
psychological problems coupled with ineffective assistance of counsel caused him to
enter a plea without full understanding of its effects does not present the “unusual
circumstance” in which a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. See id. (noting that
a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective where an intervening change in
substantive law made the crime for which the petitioner was convicted non-criminal).
IV.
In short, Smith did not show that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.”
Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of
jurisdiction. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will summarily
4
affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Smith’s § 2241 petition. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
5