2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2013

Leonard Henry v. United Sates Attorney General

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2746

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Leonard Henry v. United Sates Attorney General" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 881.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/881
GLD-213 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2746

___________

LEONARD HENRY,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL;

WARDEN, USP CANAAN

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-12-cv-00879)

District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 25, 2013

Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 2, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Leonard Henry, proceeding pro se, appeals the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania’s order dismissing Henry’s petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because this appeal does not present a substantial 
2

question, we will summarily affirm for principally the same reasons as given by the 

District Court.

I.

Following a jury trial in 1994 in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida, Henry was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

cocaine and various firearm charges stemming from a conspiracy to rob a shipment of 

cocaine from Colombian drug dealers in Miami. Henry was sentenced to life 

imprisonment, a concurrent term of 120 months, and a consecutive term of 30 years. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Henry’s conviction and 

sentence in September 1999. Henry filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 

February 2001. In the motion, Henry raised eighteen claims based on ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel, trial court errors, lack of jurisdiction, and defective 

indictments. The Southern District of Florida denied Henry’s § 2255 motion because 

some claims were procedurally defaulted and the remainder lacked merit. Henry’s appeal 

was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees.

Henry filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus in May 2012 in the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In his petition, 

Henry sought relief alleging that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and that 

his previous claims were not fully and fairly considered at trial, on direct appeal, and 

during postconviction relief proceedings resulting in a violation of due process and other 

constitutional violations. Henry argued that due to those errors and violations, he is 
3

entitled to relief under § 2241. The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack 

of jurisdiction because Henry failed to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 afforded an 

inadequate or ineffective remedy that would permit Henry to challenge his conviction and 

sentence through § 2241. Henry appeals.

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. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

III.

Upon review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Henry’s 

§ 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. A federal prisoner’s collateral 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). A remedy is inadequate or ineffective 

“only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would 

prevent” the petitioner from receiving adequate adjudication of his claims. Cradle v. 

United States 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. This exception is 
4

extremely narrow and applies only in rare circumstances. See Dorsainvil, 199 F.3d at 

251-52.

The fact that Henry previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied, 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. 

Further, Henry’s argument that his claims were “never given a full or fair hearing or 

consideration,” does not establish that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Cradle, 

290 F.3d at 538-39. To the extent that Henry alleged errors in his previous § 2255

proceeding before the Southern District of Florida, any relief that he may have been 

entitled to due to an error in those proceedings should have been sought in an appeal to 

the Eleventh Circuit and not through § 2241. See, e.g. id.

Finally, in response to the notice of possible summary action, Henry argues that 

the District Court erred by sua sponte dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction 

without giving him prior notice and an opportunity to respond. However, as noted by the 

District Court, federal courts are obligated to sua sponte identify jurisdictional defects. 

See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278-79 (1977); 

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 739-40 (1976). The District Court also 

noted that pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, made applicable to 

§ 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), dismissal without providing a petitioner an opportunity 

to respond is appropriate when it is clear from the face of the petition that jurisdiction is 

lacking. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir. 1984). Consequently, 
5

the District Court properly sua sponte dismissed Henry’s petition for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction and without prejudice to Henry seeking leave from the Eleventh 

Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

IV.

In short, Henry did not show that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. 

Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing Henry’s § 2241 petition for lack 

of jurisdiction. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Henry’s § 2241 petition for 

essentially the same reasons as set forth by the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 

I.O.P. 10.6.