2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-13-2009

Aaron Graham v. Warden Allenwood

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2736

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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

"Aaron Graham v. Warden Allenwood" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 452.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/452
1

HLD-161 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2736

___________

AARON GRAHAM, 

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN OF FCI ALLENWOOD

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00885)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

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

September 30, 2009

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 

 (Opinion filed: October 13, 2009) 

 

____________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Graham filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, seeking credit against his federal sentence for time he served in state
2

prison. Specifically, he argued that he should receive credit for time served from

November 14, 2003, through June 25, 2004. Graham made this argument previously,

albeit within his request in an earlier petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for credit for

time served between August 27, 2003, and May 2, 2005. The District Court rejected

Graham’s argument previously and denied his earlier petition. We affirmed the District

Court’s decision. See Graham v. Hogston, 268 F. App’x 192 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

This time, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), the District Court dismissed Graham’s petition. 

Graham appeals. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

District Court’s order dismissing Graham’s petition. Upon review, we conclude that

Graham’s appeal must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) because it

has no arguable basis in fact or law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

The District Court properly dismissed Graham’s petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(a) as a second or successive petition. No circuit or district judge need

evaluate the legality of a detention where the legality has previously been determined by a

federal judge or a federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Section 2244(a) bars second or

successive challenges to the legality of a detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

including those § 2241 petitions which challenge the execution of a federal sentence. 

See Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). Graham previously requested

credit for time served between November 2003 and June 2004. We and the District Court
3

considered and rejected his request. Neither we nor the District Court need to consider

the same request again. 

In short, the District Court properly dismissed Graham’s § 2241 petition as

second or successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), and we will dismiss this appeal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).