2005 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 Third C ir c uit 8-4-2005 

# J ohnson v . Apk e r P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2258

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " J o hn s on v . Ap ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 731. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/731C PS-277 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. 05- 2258

________________ E DWARD R . J OHNS ON,

A ppel l ant v. C R A I G A PK E R , W ar den

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00284) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r 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 U N E 23, 3005 B efor e: A L I T O , M C K E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2005)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C U R I A M. E d w a rd R . Jo h n so n , a f e d e ra l in m a te a t L S C I-A llen w o o d in P e n n sy lv a n ia, a p p e a ls f ro m th e d is m is s a l o f

h is p e titio n f

o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2241. J ohns on w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ct2

o f V irg in ia o f

p o ss e ss in g m o re th a n f iv e g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te and s ent ence d t o 292 m onths i n pr i s on. T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Four th C i r cui taff

i r m ed the convi ct i on and s ent ence , and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert i or ar i i n 1997. I n 2001, the s ent enci ng courtdeni ed J ohns on’ s m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. J ohns on di d notappea l thatdeci s i on. J ohns on then fi l ed a § 2241 pr ocee di ng i n the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ct o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, a rg u in g th a t h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e v io late th e ru le a n n o u n c e d in A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the § 2241 pet i t i on beca us e J ohns on fai l ed t o m ake the r equi s i t e s how i ng thathi s r emedyby§ 2255 m ot i on i s “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” s uch thathe ca n r ai s e an A ppr endi cl ai m i n a § 2241 pet i t i on. T hi s C our taff i r m ed, not i ng thatthe pr opercour s e w as forJ ohns on t o pur s ue an appl i cat i on w i th the Four th C i r cui tforperm i s s i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. See J ohns on v. G er l i ns ki , C . A . N o. 01- 4039 ( 3d C i r . A pr . 29, 2002) ( nonp rec ed en ti al, p er c u ri am o p inion ). Jo h n so n n e x t f

iled su c h a n a p p lica tio n w ith th e F o u rth C irc u it, a n d p e rm iss io n to fi l e a s econd § 2255 mot i on w as deni ed i n N ovember2004. I n J anuary2005, J ohns on th e n f iled th is § 2 2 4 1 p ro c e e d in g , ag a in c laim in g th a t h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e v io late A ppr endi and thathi s r emedyby§ 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed r el i ef, not i ng thatJ ohns on’ s r emedyby§ 2255 m ot i on i s noti nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e he ha s been de ni ed perm i s s i on t o pur s ue a s econd § 2255 m o tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d d e d th a t Jo h n so n ’s p e tit io n m u st f a il ev e n if

h e w e re toJo h n so n also fil ed a ti m elym o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n , w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt 1 deni ed byO r derent er ed M ay2, 2005. B eca us e J ohns on has nott i m el yfi l ed an a ppeal or an amended not i ce of

appea l fr om the M ay2 O r der , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the d en ial o f h is m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(4)(B )(i i) . 3 i nvoke the s ubs equentdeci s i ons i n B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 124 S. C t . 2531 ( 2004) , and U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (2 0 0 5 ), as th o se c a se s a re n o t re tro a c tiv e ly a p p lica b le o n c o llate ra l re v iew . Jo h n so n tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. 1 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on i s de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. C l eary , 46 F. 3d 307, 309- 10 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . T he appe l l ee ha s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance , w hi ch s houl d be g ra n te d if

th e a p p e a l p re s e n ts “ n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n ,” 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A f ter a c a re f

u l re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , w e w ill g ra n t th e a p p e llee ’s m o tio n a n d su m m a rily a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlye x p lain e d , Jo h n so n ’s c h a llen g e to th e v a lid ityo f h is convi ct i on and s ent ence bas ed on A ppr endi and i t s pr ogenym us tbe r ai s ed i n a § 2255 m ot i on, notunder§ 2241. A § 2255 m ot i on i s i nadequa t e and i neff ect i ve “onl yi f i tcan be s how n thats om e l i m i t at i on of s cope orpr ocedur e w oul d pr eventa Sect i on 2255 pr ocee di ng fr om aff

or di ng the pr i s onera ful l hear i ng and adj udi cat i on of hi s cl ai m of w ron g fu l deten ti o n . ” U n it ed S tat es v . B roo k s, 2 3 0 F . 3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); see In re D or s ai nvi l , 119 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng that“a pr i s onerw ho had no ea r l i er o p p o rtu n ityto c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n f o r a c rim e th a t an in ter v e n in g c h a n g e in s ubs t ant i ve l aw m aynegat e” c an pr ocee d under§ 2241) . J ohns on has m ade no s uch4

s how i ng her e. I ndeed, w e have hel d that§ 2255 i s not“i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve” f or pr i s oner s s eeki ng t o r ai s e an A ppr endi cl ai m i n a § 2241 pr ocee di ng. O ker eke v. U ni t ed S tate s, 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 -2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). M o re o v e r, itis s e ttl e d th a t m e re in a b ili tyto s at i s fythe s tr i ngentr equi r ement s forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on does not e s ta b lis h th a t § 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o r i n e f f e c tiv e . In re D o rs a in v il, 1 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 . John son co ntends that hi s cl ai m i s actuall yprem i sed up on the d ue p rocess r equi r ement s of I n r e W i ns hi p, 397 U . S. 358 ( 1970) , and notthe A ppr endi l i ne of c as e, an d as su ch , h e sh o u ld b e p erm itted to see k reli ef u n d er § 2 2 4 1 . S ee M tn. fo r S u m m ary R e v e rsa l at 3 . R e g a rd les s o f w h ich S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t Jo h n so n p u rp o rts to re ly upon, the fa ctr emai ns thathi s r emedyby§ 2255 m ot i on i s notan i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve means t o t es tthe l egal i tyof hi s det ent i on, and thus § 2241 i s unavai l abl e. In sh o rt, b e c a u se th is a p p e a l p re se n ts n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill su m m a rily aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . J ohns on’ s M ot i on forSum m aryR ever s al i s deni ed.