2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-8-2010

Manna v. Schultz

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4255

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

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 2010 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

"Manna v. Schultz" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 2091.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/2091
DLD-087

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-4255

 

LOUIS ANTHONY MANNA,

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN PAUL SCHULTZ

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District Of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. Action No. 1:-09-cv-01185)

District Judge: Robert B. Kugler

 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

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

December 31, 2009

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN AND HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: January 8, 2010)

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Louis Anthony Manna, appeals from an order of the United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his petition for 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 the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4;

I.O.P. 10.6. 

In 1989, a jury found Manna guilty of racketeering and related offenses. The

District Court subsequently sentenced him to an aggregate term of 80 years and a fine of

$250,000.00. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal, United

States v. Manna, 919 F.2d 733 (3d Cir. 1990) (table), and the United States Supreme

Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Manna v. United States, 499 U.S. 949

(1991). 

In April 1997, Manna filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion, Manna claimed that his trial counsel had

rendered ineffective assistance, and that the police and prosecution had engaged in

various forms of misconduct. The District Court denied the motion on its merits. (D.N.J.

No. 97-cv-2034.) Manna moved for reconsideration, but the court denied his request. 

We denied Manna’s application for a certificate of appealability. (C.A. No. 98-5131.) 

 Next, in September 2003, Manna filed a motion to compel discovery. In his

motion, Manna requested information pertaining to the District Judge’s impartiality

during his § 2255 proceedings. The District Court construed the motion as a second

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to § 2255, and denied it. 

Upon review, this Court found that the motion instead implicated Rule 60(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but nonetheless denied relief. (C.A. No. 04-4282.) In

2005, Manna filed another Rule 60(b) motion, which essentially repeated the allegations
3

of his first. The District Court again denied relief, and we again denied Manna’s request

for a certificate of appealability. 

 Meanwhile, Manna filed in this Court an application for authorization to file a

second or successive habeas petition. Manna claimed that he had newly discovered

evidence that one of the government’s witnesses at trial had been working as a

government informant at the time. According to Manna, this information had been

concealed from the defense and was not revealed until the witness testified in an unrelated

trial in 2006. By order entered June 18, 2007, we denied his request on the ground that

his claims did not rest on “a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law or new facts

showing a high probability of actual innocence.” (C.A. No. 07-2456, citing Gonzalez v.

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005).)

In March 2009, Manna filed the present habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in

the District Court alleging that he is innocent of the racketeering and related crimes for

which he was convicted. In support of his petition, Manna relies on the same allegations

that formed the basis of his previous motions. By order entered October 20, 2009, the

District Court dismissed the petition. The present appeal followed. 

We have jurisdiction over this appeal 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 factual findings. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121,

126-27 (3d Cir. 2002). We will affirm. 

A federal prisoner can seek relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by §
4

2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255;

Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). A § 2255 motion is not

“inadequate or ineffective” merely because the sentencing court has denied relief, Cradle,

290 F.3d at 539, or because the petitioner cannot meet the gatekeeping requirements of §

2255, Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). 

As noted above, Manna has already filed at least one unsuccessful motion pursuant

to § 2255 in the sentencing court, and an application to this Court for permission to file

another, both of which essentially raised the same claims he raises here. The fact that

Manna cannot prevail under § 2255 does not render it “inadequate or ineffective” to

protect him. See Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. Therefore, the District Court properly

dismissed Manna’s petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Accordingly, because there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we

will summarily affirm. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.