2010 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 8-4-2010 

# K ur t H anieph v

. H ele n M arb e rry 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 . 10-1900

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_2010

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 2010 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 " K ur t H aniep h v

. H e le n M ar

be rry " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 804. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/804CL D- 2 4 0 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. 10- 1900

___________ KUR T S HAWN HANI E P H, A ppel l ant v . HELEN J . M AR BERRY , W AR DEN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00231) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J ul y9, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n 1996, K ur tH ani eph w as convi ct ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ct of V i r gi ni a of va r i ous drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns es and s ent ence d t o a 360- m ont h t erm of im p ri so n m en t. A fter an u n su cc essf u l dir ec t app ea l, in 1 9 9 8 , H an ieph fil ed in the E asternH a n iep h is in c a rc e ra ted a t F C I-M c K e a n , w h ich is w ith in th e W e ste rn D istric t. 1 2 D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni a a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255, chal l engi ng hi s j udgm entof s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. Sever al y ear s l at er , i n 2006, H ani eph fi l ed w i t h t he Four t h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s an uns ucce s s ful appl i cat i on under28 U . S. C . § 2244 t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. I n 2007, H ani eph fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia a p e tit io n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , ch a llen g in g th e v a lid ityo f h is 1 convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed H ani eph’ s pet i t i on and he appea l ed. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B e c a u se H a n iep h is pr ocee di ng in fo rm a p a u p e ris , w e m u st d ism iss th e a p p e a l if it “ lac k s a rg u a b le b a sis e i t h e ri n l a w o rf

a c t . ” Ne i t z k e v . W i l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U. S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e a l s o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1915( e) ( 2) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons and appl ya cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d t o i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs . See C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex rel. M iner, 29 0 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (pe r cu ri am ). A fede ral pri soner chall eng i ng the v al i dityof h i s conv i ct i on or sent ence m ust pur s ue col l at er al r el i ef unde r§ 2255 i n t he di s tr i ctcour tw hi ch i m pos ed hi s s ent ence . See § 2255( a) ; C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538. “[U ] nderthe expl i ci tt erm s of 28 U . S. C . § 2255, unl es s a § 2255 mot i on w oul d be ‘ i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve, ’ a habe as corpus pet i t i on under§ 2241 cannotbe ent er t ai ned . . . . ” C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538. H er e, the D i s t r i ct3

C our tr eas oned thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overH ani eph’ s § 2241 pet i t i on beca us e: ( 1) he s oughtt o chal l enge the val i di t yof hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , and ( 2) fai l ed t o s how t hat § 2255 pr event ed a f

ai radj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m s . H ani eph does notcont es tthathe s oughtt o chal l enge the val i di t yof hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . R ather , he ar gued that § 2255 w as notan ade quat e oreff ect i ve ave nue forr el i ef. “A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve onl yw her e the pet i t i oner demonstr at es t hats om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e w oul d pr eventa § 2255 pr ocee di ng fr om aff

or di ng hi m a ful l hear i ng and adj udi cat i on of hi s w r ongful det ent i on c laim .” C ra d le, 2 9 0 F .3 d a t 5 3 8 . “S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 is n o t in a d e q u a te o r in e f f e c tiv e m e re ly beca us e the s ent enci ng cour tdoes notgr antr el i ef, . . . orthe pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eet t he s t r i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s of the amended § 2255. ” I d. at539. W e have hel d § 2255 t o be i nadequa t e and i neff ect i ve w hen the conduc tforw hi ch an i ndi vi dual w as convi ct ed i s s ubs equent l ym ade non- cr i m i nal , and the pet i t i oneri s ot herw i s e barr ed fro m fil ing a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . S ee In re D o rsainv il , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). In s uch a s i tuat i on, a pet i t i onerm ays eek r el i ef unde r§ 2241. See i d. H ani eph r el i ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n C r aw for d v. W as hi ngt on, 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) , and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , forthe pr opos i t i on that§ 2255 i s i nadequa t e and i neff ect i ve in hi s case. A l t ho ug h those cases anno un ced n ew rul es of l aw , neither case d e c rim in a lize d th e c o n d u c t f o r w h ich H a n iep h w a s c o n v icte d . M o re o v e r, n e ith e r c a se is r etr oact i ve on col l at er al r evi ew . See W hor t on v. B ockt i ng, 549 U . S. 406, 409 ( 2007)4

(C raw ford); L l oy d v . U nit ed S t at es, 40 7 F . 3d 60 8, 61 3-14 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( B oo ker) . T hu s, H ani eph has fai l ed t o s how t hat§ 2255 i s i neff ect i ve ori nadequa t e as appl i ed t o hi s cas e. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2).