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 Thir d C ir c uit 6-10-2005 

# T urne r v . Apk e r 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 . 05-1141

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " T urne r v . Ap ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1029. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1029NOT 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- 1141

________________ QUI NCY TURNER, 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. 04- cv- 01251) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 10, 2005 BEFORE: SLOV I TER, BA RRY a n d FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J une 10, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Q u incyT u rne r, p ro se , ap p ea ls from tw o o rde rs of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 282

U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 f

o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . We wi l l a f f i r m. I n 1996, i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, Q ui ncyT urnerw as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyand s ever al count s of coc ai ne bas e di s tr i but i on i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . H e w as sent enced t o tw o h un dred t hirty -fi ve m on ths i m pri sonm ent, fi ve y ears supervi sed rel ease a n d a f iv e h u n d re d d o llar s p e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. O n a p p e a l, th is C o u rt a f f irm e d h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e . S e e C .A . N o . 9 6 -1 6 6 0 . In 1 9 9 8 , T u rn e r f iled a m o tio n to vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ecthi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed on the mer i t s . I n 2001, he fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, w hi ch w as al s o deni ed. See C . A . N o. 01- 2442. I n J une 2004, T urner , w ho i s i ncar cer at ed atL . S. C . I . A l l enw ood, fi l ed the i ns t ant p e tit io n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 in th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. In h is pet i t i on he cl ai m s thathe i s “ac tual l yi nnocent ” of di s tr i but i ng the quant i tyof coc ai ne that w as th e b asis fo r his sen tenc e a n d that h e sh o u ld h av e b ee n sen tenc ed b ase d o n the ju ry ’s fi ndi ng of an i ndet erm i nat e amount . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe pet i t i on b e d ism iss e d f

o r la c k o f

ju risd ictio n b e c a u se th e re lief T u rn e r se e k s is o n lya v a ilab le thr ough a § 2255 mot i on. T urnerfi l ed a r es pons e t o the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on i n w hi ch he a gr eed thatthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctl acke d j ur i s di ct i on and re q u e ste d a tra n sf

e r to th e E a ste rn D istric t. T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te3

J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed Turne r ’ s pet i t i on. T urnerfi l ed “obj ect i ons ” t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tcons trued as a mot i on forr econs i der at i on and deni ed. T urnerappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n is p lena ry . S ee B ak h tr iger v . E lw o o d , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e agree w i th the D i stri ctC ou rtthat i tl acked j uri sdi ct i on t o co nsi der T urner’ s § 2241 pet i t i on. A § 2241 pet i t i on m aynotbe us ed t o chal l enge a convi ct i on ors ent ence unl es s a § 2255 mot i on i s “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof [the] det ent i on. ” S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e n a tu re o f T u rn e r’s c laim p lac e s h is p e tit io n sq u a re lyw ith in the s cope of

§ 2255 and, ther efor e, r ender s hi s § 2241 pet i t i on, i n eff ect , a s econd or s ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on s ubj ectt o the gat e- keepi ng r es tr i ct i ons of the A nt i t err or i s m and E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (“ A E D P A ” ). T h e m e re f a c t th a t A E D P A m a yp re v e n t h is u se o f § 2 2 5 5 d o es n o t r en d er itinad eq u ate. Se e C rad le v. U n it ed S tat es e x rel. M iner, 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 -3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). O u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f T u rn e r’s m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n is f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e P e n n W . A s s o c . v . C o h e n , 3 7 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T u rn e r p re se n ted n o th in g p e rsu a siv e to c o n tro v e rt th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is pet i t i on and mer el ys oughtt o r ehas h the s ame i s s ues . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , ther efor e, pr oper l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.4

A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s di s m i s s i ng T urner ’ s § 2241 pet i t i on and deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.