Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03940/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03940-0/pdf.json

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

---

CLD-173 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3940

___________

EDGAR SPENCER PHILLIPS,

Appellant

v.

J.L. NORWARD, Northeast Regional Director

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-14-cv-04468)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to

Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 23, 2015

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 10, 2015)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Edgar Spencer Phillips, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from orders

of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denying his motion for 

Case: 14-3940 Document: 003111986332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
2

reconsideration. We will affirm.

In 1996, Phillips pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia to interstate domestic violence and conspiracy to possess 

cocaine base with the intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison for 

the domestic violence conviction, to run concurrently with 235 months for the drug 

conviction. Phillips did not appeal. He filed several motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 between 1999 and 2005 that were denied. In 2009, he successfully moved for a 

reduction in the sentence for his drug conviction, resulting in a reduced sentence of 210 

months. Thereafter, he filed several additional motions to reduce or adjust his sentence, 

arguing that a prior conviction was included in his criminal history that never actually 

occurred. The West Virginia court denied the motions in 2014 as unauthorized second or 

successive § 2255 motions.

While the motions to reduce sentence were pending, Phillips filed a habeas 

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 raising the same argument regarding his sentence. 

The matter was transferred to the New Jersey District Court because Phillips was 

incarcerated in New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of 

jurisdiction, concluding that the claim could be raised only, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. 

Phillips then filed an amended petition, adding more details to his claim and seeking to 

have it considered as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The District Court 

construed the amended petition as a motion for reconsideration and denied it, concluding 

that Phillips had not shown clear error in the prior decision, or a change in the law or new 

Case: 14-3940 Document: 003111986332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
3

evidence. As for coram nobis relief, the court concluded that it could not be used to 

circumvent the procedural barriers to filing a second or successive § 2255 motion and 

that it was not available to petitioners still in custody. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary 

review over the District Court’s legal conclusions. See Cradle ex rel. Miner v. United 

States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). If no substantial question is 

presented, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 

27.4; I.O.P. 10.6; Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).

We agree with the District Court that Phillips’ § 2241petition was not viable. 

He explicitly challenged his sentence, and “[m]otions 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). Although a petitioner may challenge a conviction 

pursuant § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a § 2255 

motion is inadequate or ineffective “only where the petitioner demonstrates 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.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538. 

This exception applies only in rare circumstances.

In In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251-52 (3d Cir. 1997), we recognized that the 

exception could apply where an intervening change in the law decriminalized the conduct 

for which the petitioner had been convicted. Phillips cannot avail himself of this 

Case: 14-3940 Document: 003111986332 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
4

exception. The conduct underlying his conviction is still a crime, and Phillips does not 

argue otherwise. Nor does he argue that he is actually innocent or present anything else 

that might be considered an extraordinary circumstance justifying the use of § 2241. See

Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. Instead, he argues only that the sentencing range used by the 

West Virginia court was incorrect due to the improper inclusion of a prior conviction. 

Phillips previously brought this claim to the sentencing court, where relief was denied 

because the claim should have been presented in an application for a successive § 2255 

motion. Phillips cannot now show that a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective” –

and that resort to § 2241 is therefore available – simply because the sentencing court did 

not grant him relief.

1

Id.

Nor may Phillips resort to coram nobis. Coram nobis “is an extraordinary remedy 

and a court’s jurisdiction to grant relief is of limited scope.” United States v. Baptiste, 

223 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). It is traditionally used to attack 

convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer in custody. 

Id. As the District Court noted, Phillips is still in custody, making coram nobis relief

unavailable. Although he argues that he is no longer in custody on the sentence he 

 

1

It appears that Phillips may no longer be serving the sentence he challenges, but 

rather is serving a later imposed, consecutive sentence for attempted escape. See

Judgment, United States v. Phillips, No. 2:97-cr-00003 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 22, 1997), ECF 

No. 20. This situation does not make § 2255 unavailable, for a prisoner with a 

consecutive sentence remains “in custody” on the completed sentence while serving the 

consecutive sentence. See Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 41 (1995). This rule applies 

even when the consecutive sentence is imposed at a different time. See DeFoy v. 

McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005).

Case: 14-3940 Document: 003111986332 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/10/2015
5

challenges, but rather serving a consecutive sentence for another conviction, he cites no 

authority suggesting that a prisoner in such a situation may seek coram nobis relief. The 

existence of any such authority seems unlikely, given that, as previously noted, a prisoner 

serving a consecutive sentence is still deemed to be “in custody” on the completed 

sentence. Garlotte, 515 U.S. at 41.

Aside from the issue of custody, there are other barriers to relief. Coram nobis is 

traditionally understood to be available only from the court that issued the criminal 

judgment. See, e.g., Sinclair v. Lousiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); 

Lowery v. McCaughtry, 954 F.2d 422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992). The judgment at issue here 

came from the Northern District of West Virginia. Review of that decision by the 

District of New Jersey would not be “in aid of” the court’s jurisdiction under the All 

Writs Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Finally, a writ of error coram nobis “may not issue 

when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available.” United States v. 

Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). We have concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the 

vehicle for Phillips’ claim. The West Virginia court concluded as much when it denied 

Phillips’ sentencing motions as unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motions. 

Phillips may not now resort to coram nobis simply to evade the stringent requirements of 

§ 2255. See Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189-90.

For these reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders. See 3d 

Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 14-3940 Document: 003111986332 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/10/2015