2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-21-2006 

# Gordon v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3383

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gor don v . U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 39. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/391

HLD- 3 4 ( De c e mb e r 2 0 0 6 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 3383

________________ 

### MI CH AE L L EEGO RD ON , Appe l l ant

v s. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA



### ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . PA . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 01015) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 D ece m ber8, 2006 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, W E IS and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed D ece m ber21, 2006

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

M ich a e l L e e G o rd o n , a f e d e ra l in m a te in c a rc e ra ted a t U S P -A llen w o o d in Penns y l vani a, appea l s pr o s e fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a d i s mi s s i n g h i s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 I n M ar ch 1999, a j ur ys i t t i ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe Sout hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o found G or don gui l t yof s even c ount s of w eapons vi ol at i ons and s even vi ol at i ons of the H obbs A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 1951. G or don w as s ent ence d t o 137 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Si xth C i r cui taff i r m ed. G or don th e r e a f t e rf i l e d a mo t i o n t o v a c a t e , s e ta s i d e o rc o r r e c th i s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s t r i ctof O hi o on Sept ember30, 2002. I n 2003, G or don fi l ed a s econd § 2255 mot i on, w hi ch w as tr a n s f e rr e d to th e S ix th C ir c u it a s a s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n a n d w a s d e n ie d in J u n e 2 0 0 5 . O n M ay18, 2006, G or don fi l ed the under l y i ng § 2241 pet i t i on i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a as s ert i ng that§ 2255 i s an i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve m eans of cont es t i ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence beca us e the G overnm entnever re s p o n d e d to th e is s u e s ra is e d in h is o ri g in a l § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S e e § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n a t 5 . G o rd o n ’s s u b s ta n tiv e c la im s a lle g e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. I d . a t 1 4 . G o rdo n ’s pe ti ti o n w as re fe rred to a M ag istrate Ju d g e w h o issue d a R ep o rt r ecomm endi ng t hati tbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the cl ai m pr es ent ed w a s c lea rlyw ith in th e p u rv iew o f § 2 2 5 5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed the § 2241 pet i t i on, rul i ng that G or don’ s cl ai m w as es s ent i al l ya s ent enci ng cl ai m and thathe fa i l ed t o s how how a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w a s in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e to tes t th e leg a lityo f h is d e ten tio n . T h is t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.3 W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fores s ent i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor t h byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or der di s m i s s i ng G or don’ s pet i t i on.

A s t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, a § 2255 mot i on i s the pr es um pt i ve means fora fe der al pr i s onert o chal l enge the val i di t yof a c onvi ct i on ors ent ence , unl es s s uch a m ot i on w oul d be “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i t yof hi s det ent i on. ” O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ¶ 5. A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yw hen “s om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e” pr event s a movantfr om r ece i vi ng an adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m . C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Sect i on 2255 i s noti nadequa t e or in e f f e c tiv e m e re lyb e c a u se a p rio r m o tio n h a s b e e n u n su c c e ss f u l o r a p e tit io n e r is u n a b le t o m eetthe s t r i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m o tio n u n d e r t h e A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ). O ker eke, 307 F. 3d at120- 21. See al s o C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at539.

T he “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi ded under§ 2255 i s extr emel ynarr ow and has been hel d t o appl yi n unus ual s i tuat i ons , s uch as thos e i n w hi ch a pr i s onerhas had no pr i or op po rtun i tyt o ch al l eng e his con vict i on for act s l at er deem ed to be n on -cr i m i nal because o f a n interve n ing ch an g e in th e law . S ee O k ere k e, 30 7 F . 3 d at 12 0 (cit ing In re D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) . Such i s notthe ca s e her e. G or don m akes no al l egat i on t hathe i s actual l yi nnocentof the cr i m es forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. T he4

e x c e p tio n id e n tifie d in In re D o rsa in v il i s s im p lyin a p p lica b le. G o rd o n ’s c laim s f a ll w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f

§ 2 2 5 5 b e c a u s e th e yc h a lle n g e th e v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatG or don has notdemonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s an “i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve” r emedyunderthe ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e. See C r adl e, 2 9 0 F .3 d a t 5 3 8 (“ It is th e in e f f ica c yo f th e re m e d y , n o t th e p e rso n a l in a b ili tyto u se it, thati s det erm i nat i ve”) . G or don’ s r ecour s e atthi s poi nti s t o s eek pe r m i s s i on fr om the Si xth C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on i n t he se n ten c in g c o u rt.

B eca us e the § 2241 pet i t i on w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed and no s ubs t ant i al q u esti o n is prese n ted b ythis ap p ea l, w e w il l gran t app ell ee ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary af firm an ce an d af

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er e n tered o n Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 6 . S ee T h ir d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6.