Case Name: Darnell KING, Appellant v. Ronald R. HOLT
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-09
Citations: 153 F. App'x 873
Docket Number: No. 05-3678
Parties: Darnell KING, Appellant v. Ronald R. HOLT.
Judges: Before SLOVITER, MCKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 153
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
Darnell KING, Appellant v. Ronald R. HOLT.
No. 05-3678.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
Darnell King, Minersville, PA, pro se.
Kate L. Mershimer, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.
Before SLOVITER, MCKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Darnell King appeals the District Court's order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The background of this case and the details of King's claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court's opinion, and need not be discussed at length. In his petition, King alleged that his 210 month sentence for extortion was unconstitutionally enhanced by prior state court convictions. The District Court dismissed the petition, and King filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. King's § 2241 petition may not be entertained unless a motion under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Previous unsuccessful § 2255 motions are not sufficient to show that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. Litterio v. Parker, 369 F.2d 395, 396 (3d Cir.1966); See also In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.1997). We agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over King's petition.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court's July 20, 2005 order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.