Filed: May 07, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-7-2009 Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4594 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1391. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1391 This decision is brought to you for free and open access
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-7-2009 Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4594 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1391. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1391 This decision is brought to you for free and open access ..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-7-2009
Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4594
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Gabriel Jennings v. Ronnie Holt" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1391.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1391
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4594
___________
GABRIEL JENNINGS,
Appellant
v.
RONNIE R. HOLT, WARDEN;
ALBERTO GONZALEZ,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET. AL.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03852)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 2, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 7, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Gabriel Jennings appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders dismissing his
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denying his motions for reconsideration
and to set status conference. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal.
I.
In 1991, Jennings was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania of arson (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)), in addition to other
drug-related and conspiracy offenses.
His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. After his first § 2255
motion was denied in 1993, Jennings received authorization from this Court in 1997 to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See C.A. 93-1120; C.A.. No. 97-8004. The
District Court granted in part Jennings’s § 2255 motion, vacated his firearm convictions
under United States v. Bailey, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), and vacated his conviction for
engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise under Rutledge v. United States,
517 U.S.
292 (1996). On appeal, this Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. See
C.A. No. 98-1352.
Jennings then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, which denied the petition. In
January 2001, Jennings filed a § 2244 application in this Court, seeking permission to file
a successive § 2255 motion based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and
Jones v. United States,
529 U.S. 848 (2000). We denied Jennings’s application “without
prejudice to his right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to challenge his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), in light of Jones v. United
2
States, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000), in the District Court in the district of his confinement.”
See C.A. No. 00-4257.
In June 2001, Jennings, who was incarcerated in Pollock, Louisiana, filed a § 2241
petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, raising
his Apprendi and Jones claims. The District Court transferred Jennings’s petition to this
Court for authorization pursuant to §§ 2244 and 2255. In September 2001, we denied
Jennings’s application, again noting that the application was denied without prejudice to
re-filing “in the District Court in the district of his confinement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241.” See C.A. No. 01-2887.
Jennings re-filed his § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana, which dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding that Jennings
did not demonstrate that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective and that, therefore, his
application could not be heard under § 2241. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed.
In August 2003, Jennings returned to this Court, once again seeking authorization
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255. He reiterated his Jones claim, in addition to
other claims regarding his sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel. We denied
Jennings’s request to file a second or successive motion because he not meet the criteria
prescribed by 28 U.S.C.§§ 2244 and 2255. The order noted that the “denial of relief is
without prejudice to Jennings seeking a writ of error coram nobis in the district court in
3
which he was convicted on the basis of Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848,
120 S. Ct.
1904 (2000).” See C.A. 03-3251. It is unclear from the record before us whether he filed
such a petition.
In September 2007, Jennings, who was imprisoned at that time at USP – Canaan in
Waymart, Pennsylvania, filed a § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Jennings argued that the basis for his petition was that
his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) was void in light of Jones. In Jones, the Court
held that a defendant could not be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) unless the
property was currently used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce. Jones,
529 U.S. at 859. According to Jennings, the arson for which he was convicted under §
844(i) involved a personal residence and, therefore, he was convicted of a non-existent
crime.
The District Court concluded that because Jennings sought to have his sentence
voided and be released from custody, he should seek relief via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather
than § 2241; and because he had already filed such a motion, he could not do so again
without first obtaining permission from this Court. Jennings filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the District Court denied, noting: “To the extent that Plaintiff
seeks to file a petition under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), he must do so in the district of his
confinement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Jennings appeals.
4
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Jennings is proceeding in
forma pauperis, we must dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) if it is
legally frivolous.
A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is confined. 28
U.S.C. § 2241(a); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of
the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging
present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of
confinement.”) When he filed his petition, Jennings was housed at USP Canaan in
Waymart, Pennsylvania, which is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.1 Despite being
repeatedly advised by us that any § 2241 petition he may wish to file should be filed in
the district of his confinement, he filed it in the Eastern District. Thus, the District Court
lacked jurisdiction and properly dismissed Jennings’s petition and denied his motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
1
On March 20, 2009, Jennings filed a notice of change of address advising the District
Court that he was now housed in USP Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia.
5
