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 8-2-2005 

# H azel v . S mith 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 . 05-1564

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 " H az el v . S mith" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 748. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/748CP S - 2 6 3 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- 1564

________________ BO BBY HA ZEL, A ppel l ant v. J O SE PH SM I T H , 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- 00131) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

_______________________________________ 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 une 3, 2005 BEFORE: ALI TO, M c KEE an d AM BRO , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t2, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM B obbyE . H aze l , pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i d d l e Di s tr i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a d i s mi s s i n g h i s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C.2

§ 2 2 4 1 f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I n 1993, a fe der al j uryfound H aze l and a c o- defe ndantgui l tyof fi r s t - degr ee m ur derand pos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon bya pr i s onerform ur der i ng a fe l l ow i nm at e atL or t on C orr ect i onal Faci l i tyi n O ccoqua n, V i r gi ni a. H aze l w as s ent ence d t o l i fe im p riso n m e n t. H e a p p e a led , an d th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F o u rth C i r cui taff

i r m ed hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , w hi ch he i s now s ervi ng atthe U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryatL ew i s bur g, Penns y l vani a. I n 1997, H aze l fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e, s et a s id e o r c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . It w a s d e n ie d o n th e m e ri ts . Fol l ow i ng the deni al of thatm ot i on, H aze l has fi l ed a s er i es of appl i cat i ons t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on, one of w hi ch w as gr ant ed. T he s econd § 2255 m o tio n h e w a s p e rm itte d to f ile , h o w e v e r, w a s d e n ie d . I n J anuary2005, H aze l fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on pur s uantt o § 2241. H e cl ai m s t hat th e D istric t C o u rt th a t ad ju d ica ted h is f

irst § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n su m m a rilyd ism iss e d h is m o tio n w ith o u t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g o r a f u ll co n sid e ra tio n o f

h is c laim s a n d th a t h is c l a i ms we r e n o tf

u l l ya d d r e s s e d i n a n yo f h i s a t t e mp t s a tc o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k . He a l s o c l a i ms actual i nnocenc e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed H aze l ’ s pet i t i on on the bas i s that§ 2255 w as n o t i n ad eq u ate, an d the c o u rt , there fo re, l ac k ed juri sd ict ion to co n side r H az el’s claim s u n d er § 2 2 4 1 . H az el fil ed a m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n , w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed. H aze l t i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatH aze l i s notent i t l ed t o br i ng hi s cl ai m s under3

§ 2241. H i s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and pr os ecut or i al w i thhol di ng of evi dence pl ace hi s pet i t i on s quar el yw i thi n the s cope of § 2255. Sect i on 2255 i s not i nadequa t e s i m pl ybeca us e A E D PA ’ s gat ekee pi ng r es tr i ct i ons pr eventhi m fr om avai l i ng h im self o f it . S ee C rad le v. U n it ed S tat es e x rel. M iner, 29 0 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 -39 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); 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 ). Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l . See T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 2 7 . 4 . F o re s s e n t i a l l yth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng H aze l ’ s § 2241 pet i t i on. See T hi r d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6.