Filed: Nov. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-19-2002 Kennedy v. Mendez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2535 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Kennedy v. Mendez" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 755. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/755 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unit
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-19-2002 Kennedy v. Mendez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2535 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Kennedy v. Mendez" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 755. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/755 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unite..
More
Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-19-2002
Kennedy v. Mendez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2535
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"Kennedy v. Mendez" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 755.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/755
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNREPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 02-2535
________________
JOSEPH WILLIE KENNEDY,
Appellant
v.
JAKE MENDEZ, Warden
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-02429)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 18, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, GREENBERG, and COWEN Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 18, 2002)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Willie Kennedy, a federal prisoner incarcerated at all relevant times at a
facility in White Deer, Pennsylvania, appeals the district court’s dismissal of a habeas
petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
I.
In 1992, Kennedy was convicted in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland of conspiracy to possess a substance containing cocaine with intent to
distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced as a career offender to life in prison.
His direct appeal was unsuccessful. See United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 891 (4th
Cir. 1994). Kennedy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with the sentencing court in 2001.
That motion was denied, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
subsequently denied Kennedy’s request for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion.
Kennedy submitted his § 2241 petition to the district court in February 2002. In it,
he argued that (i) the sentencing court violated his right to due process by treating him as a
career offender because his predicate convictions all pre-dated the provision allowing state
and local convictions to be counted, but see United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541,
560-61 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Congress did not intend for all criminals to start with a clean
slate” after enactment of the sentencing provision); (ii) the indictment was unlawful under
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it did not allege a drug quantity; (iii)
the life sentence exceeded the statutory penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 841 for a first-time
offender; (iv) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to impose a life sentence
because the Government failed to produce five kilograms of a substance containing
cocaine; and (v) he received ineffective assistance at trial, sentencing, and on appeal when
counsel failed to raise these arguments. The district court held that Kennedy was not
entitled to proceed via § 2241 because the remedy provided by § 2255 was not “inadequate
2
or ineffective.” As to Kennedy’s Apprendi arguments, the court held in the alternative that
Apprendi was not retroactively applicable on collateral review. After the district court
denied Kennedy’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter the judgment, Kennedy timely
appealed.
II.
We agree with the district court that Kennedy could not proceed with any of his
claims in a § 2241 petition. Under the explicit terms of § 2255, unless a § 2255 motion
would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a habeas petition cannot be entertained by a court.
See also Application of Galante, 473 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971). Section 2255 is not
“inadequate or ineffective” merely because the sentencing court has previously denied
relief or because the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 make it difficult to prosecute
successive motions. See In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997). As the
district court concluded, if Kennedy is to obtain relief on any of his claims, he must do so
via § 2255 in the Fourth Circuit.
Relying on Dorsainvil and similar cases, Kennedy contends that he should be
able to resort to § 2241 because a habeas petition “is always available to address claims of
actual or legal innocence or to correct a miscarriage of justice.” Appellant’s brief, 5. He
takes Dorsainvil’s narrow holding too far. See Okereke v. United States, ___ F.3d ___,
2002 WL 31221450, at *2 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2002). Dorsainvil was strictly limited to
prisoners in “Dorsainvil’s unusual position--that of a prisoner who had no earlier
opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive
3
law may negate.” Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. None of Kennedy’s claims satisfies this
test. As the district court noted, Kennedy could have previously asserted all of his non-
Apprendi claims. See District Court Memorandum, 10. As we have recently stressed,
Apprendi, which did post-date Kennedy’s conviction, “dealt with sentencing and did not
render [Kennedy’s offense] not criminal.” Okereke,
2002 WL 31221450, at *3.1
Accordingly, Dorsainvil cannot aid Kennedy as to any of his claims. To the extent that
Kennedy asks us to enlarge the ambit of Dorsainvil, see reply brief, 2, we decline the
invitation. See Okereke,
2002 WL 31221450, at *2-3.
III.
1
Indeed, none of Kennedy’s allegations actually suggest--as Dorsainvil requires--that
postconviction happenings negated the very basis for his conviction. This includes the
artful assertions in Kennedy’s motion to alter the judgment that he was “actually innocent”
because (a) he was not charged, but was sentenced under, 21 U.S.C. § 841 and (b) no
physical evidence of a controlled substance was ever produced by the Government.
4
For the reasons that we have given, Kennedy may not litigate his claims in a § 2241
petition. We will affirm the judgment of the district court to that effect.2
2
We need not reach the district court’s alternative holding concerning Kennedy’s
Apprendi claims--i.e., that Apprendi is, as a general matter, not retroactively applicable on
collateral review. As the district court noted, we have held that Apprendi has not been
“made retroactive” so that it may be raised in a successive § 2255 motion. See In re Turner,
267 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. We have not yet had the
opportunity to address in a published opinion whether Apprendi would be retroactively
applicable in any other setting. See Rodgers v. United States,
229 F.3d 704, 705-06 (8th
Cir. 2000) (noting that whether a new rule of law may be raised in a successive § 2255
motion is conceptually distinct from whether the new rule would be retroactively
applicable in a proper vehicle for collateral review).
5
