2009 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 10-28-2009 

# Miguel G arc i a v

. J. Grondol sky 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 . 09-3030

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mi gue l G ar c i a v

. J . Gr ondo l sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 368. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/3681

HLD- 1 7 1 ( S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 9 ) 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. 09- 3030

___________ M I GUE L NI E VE S GAR CI A, A ppel l ant v . J. G R O N D O L S K Y , W a rd e n F .C .I., F o rt D ix

____________________________________ 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00783) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le R o b ert B . K u g ler

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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

Subm i t t ed Sept ember30, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober28, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

T hi s i s an appe al fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of M i guel N i eves G a rc ia’ s p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e w ill2

s um m ar i l yaff

i r m . See I . O . P. 10. 6.

I n 1995 t he U ni t ed St at ed D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof W i s cons i n s ent ence d G ar ci a t o an aggr egat e t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 360 m ont hs for v a rio u s d ru g c h a rg e s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it af f irm e d h is convi ct i on. U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a, 89 F. 3d 362 ( 7t h C i r . 1996) . G ar ci a then fi l ed a m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ects ent ence , pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he tr i al cour tdeni ed the mot i on and the Seventh C i r cui tdeni ed hi s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i t y. O n February18, 2009, G ar ci a fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 1. In the p et i t i on , G arci a chall eng ed h i s cl assi fi cat i on as a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, ar g u in g th a t a 1 9 7 2 c o n v ictio n sh o u ld n o t h a v e c o u n ted a s a p re d ica te offe ns e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on and G ar ci a fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l to th is C o u rt. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us 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 r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . U pon r evi ew , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d ism iss a l.3 A § 2255 m ot i on i s t he pr es um pt i ve means byw hi ch a f eder al pr i s onercan chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . See D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U . S. 333, 343

( 1 9 7 4 ) . A f

e d e r a l p r i s o n e rm a y p r o c e e d u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 o n l y i f t h e r e m e d y p r o v i d e d b y § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ; In re D o rsa in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 9 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is i nadequa t e ori neff

ect i ve onl yw her e the pet i t i onerdemonst r 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 cl ai m . ” C r adl e, 290 F. 3d at538.

H er e, as t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d, G ar ci a has notes t abl i s hed thata § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tt he l egal i t yof hi s det ent i on. G ar ci a r ai s ed the car eeroffe ndercl ai m on di r ectappea l . See G ar ci a, 89 F. 3d at366. Fur t her , he appar ent l yr ai s ed the cl ai m i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on buthe al l eges t hatt he W i s cons i n D i s t r i ct C our t“unr eas onabl yhel d hi s § 2255 m ot i on t o t he s tr i ctcompl i ance w i t h i t s pr ocedur al rul es . ” ( Pet i t i on at12. ) H ow ever , “[i ] ti s t he i neff i cac yof the r emedy , nott he per s onal in a b ili tyto u se it, th a t is d e ter m in a tiv e .” C ra d le, 2 9 0 F .3 d a t 5 3 9 . N e ith e r th e S e v e n th C i r cui t ’ s r ej ect i on of thatcl ai m on di r ectappea l nort he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the c la im f o r p ro c e d u ra l v io la tio n s re n d e rs § 2 2 5 5 in a d e q u a te . Id . T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on4

under§ 2241 t o hearG ar ci a’ s cl ai m . Fur t her , the D i s t r i ctC our tal s o corr ect l ycons t rued hi s pet i t i on as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on and hel d t hati tal s o l acke d j ur i s di ct i on overs uch a mot i on. W e agr ee thatt he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce di d notr equi r e the

D i s t r i ctC our tt o t r ans fert he pet i t i on t o t he Seventh C i r cui t . See 28 U . S. C . § 1631.

F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r.