Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03420/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03420-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

AMENDED DLD-175 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-3420

____________

DERRICK LEON HILLS,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN LORETTO FCI

__________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-15-cv-00241)

District Judge: Kim R. Gibson

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 10, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: April 4, 2016)

____________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Derrick Hills appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will 

summarily affirm.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3420 Document: 003112251921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
2

In May of 2009, a United States District Judge sitting in the Eastern District of 

Michigan issued an order to show cause why Hills should not be held in criminal 

contempt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).1 The matter was tried before a jury in 

September of 2013, and Hills was convicted of five counts of criminal contempt. Hills 

was released in advance of sentencing, but, when he failed to appear for his sentencing 

hearing, the District Judge revoked his bond and issued a warrant for his arrest. Hills 

eventually was arrested and sentenced on March 10, 2014 to a term of imprisonment of 

46 months, a term he is now serving in the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, 

Pennsylvania. Hills timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit.

While his appeal was pending, Hills filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Pennsylvania, raising numerous challenges to the validity of his conviction and sentence, 

including that the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction to convict him in the absence of an indictment or complaint, and that his 46-

month sentence was improper. In an order entered on August 21, 2014, the District Court 

denied the § 2241 petition, and we affirmed, see Hills v. Warden Loretto FCI, 597 F. 

App’x 669 (3d Cir. 2015) (motion filed under § 2255 in sentencing court is presumptive 

means for federal prisoner to challenge validity of his conviction or sentence after he has 

completed his direct appeal).

 

1 Rule 42(a) provides that “[a]ny person who commits criminal contempt may be 

punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). Notice 

must be given “in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order,” and must: 

“(A) state the time and place of the trial; (B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to 

prepare a defense; and (C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal 

contempt and describe it as such.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1)(A)-(C).

Case: 15-3420 Document: 003112251921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
3

At issue in this appeal, on September 16, 2015, Hills filed another § 2241 petition 

in the Western District of Pennsylvania, again challenging the validity of his conviction 

and sentence. In an order entered on September 29, 2015, the District Court summarily 

dismissed the petition without prejudice to Hills’ pending direct appeal.

Hills timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Burkey v. 

Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (certificate of appealability not required to 

appeal from denial of § 2241 petition). Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 

affirmed Hills’ criminal judgment on November 5, 2015, see United States v. Derrick

Hills, C.A. No. 14-1361 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) (Order). The court’s mandate issued on 

January 22, 2016.

Our Clerk granted Hills leave to appeal in forma pauperis and advised him that the 

appeal was subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary 

action under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He was invited to submit argument in 

writing, and he has done so. He argues that his § 2241 petition should proceed because 

the pendency of his direct appeal is no longer an impediment to it; jurisdiction in the 

Eastern District of Michigan to prosecute him for contempt was lacking because of the 

absence of an indictment or criminal complaint; Richard Roble was not authorized to act 

as a prosecutor because he is not an Assistant U.S. Attorney;2and because any remedy 

available to him under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate to test the legality of his detention. 

Hills also has filed a motion for bail pending appeal, which the Government has opposed.

 

2 Roble was working as a Special Assistant United States Attorney during his 

involvement in the criminal contempt proceeding. Rule 42(a) requires that “the contempt 

be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the 

appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must 

appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2).

Case: 15-3420 Document: 003112251921 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
4

We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial 

question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. A petition 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 is used to challenge some aspect of the execution of a 

federal inmate’s sentence. See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001) 

(“Section 2241 is the ... statute that confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a 

federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence.”). 

Hills is not challenging the execution of his sentence; rather, he once again has resorted 

to § 2241 to attack the validity of his conviction and sentence. Because his direct appeal 

has now come to an end, Hills must bring his challenge to his contempt conviction and 

sentence through a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court. 

See In re: Olopade, 325 F.3d 166, 168 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Once the defendant has 

completed a direct appeal, [he] may file one collateral challenge as a matter of course 

provided it is timely.”). A motion filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court is the 

presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of his conviction or 

sentence after he has completed his direct appeal. See Okereke v. United States, 307 

F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Hills’ argument that the remedy available to him under § 

2255 is inadequate is premature.

Because the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

lacked jurisdiction to grant Hills relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241, we will deny his request 

for bail under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Landano v. Rafferty, 

970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992) (bail pending disposition of habeas corpus review is 

available “only when the petitioner has raised substantial constitutional claims upon 

which he has a high probability of success [. . .] or [has shown that] exceptional 

Case: 15-3420 Document: 003112251921 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
5

circumstances exist which make a grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy 

effective.”). We do so without prejudice to his right to seek bail in the context of a 

properly filed § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Michigan. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court 

denying the § 2241 petition. Hills’ motion for bail pending appeal is denied. Hill’s 

motion for leave to substitute his reply is denied.

Case: 15-3420 Document: 003112251921 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/04/2016