Kaseen Dobson v. Attorney General United States
677 F. App'x 48
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Dobson was convicted in 2008 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for, inter alia, conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced to 300 months; this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence.
- He filed a § 2255 motion in 2011 which the district court denied on the merits; this Court denied a certificate of appealability.
- Dobson then filed a second § 2255 motion without obtaining authorization from the Court of Appeals; the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
- Dobson filed a § 2241 petition claiming his detention was unlawful because the trial docket did not show the indictment authenticated by every grand juror, arguing this defect deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion; Dobson appealed and the panel summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle for attacking conviction/jurisdiction | Dobson: § 2241 may be used to challenge the legality of his detention based on an allegedly defective indictment | Government/District Court: Claim attacks conviction and must be brought under § 2255; Dobson already filed one § 2255 and did not get authorization for another | Court: Dismissal affirmed — claim must be pursued under § 2255; district court lacked jurisdiction over an unauthorized successive § 2255 |
| Availability of § 2241 when § 2255 is inadequate | Dobson: § 2255 is not necessary or adequate for relief from unlawful imprisonment based on indictment defects | Government: Dobson has not shown § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective | Court: No extraordinary circumstance shown; § 2241 unavailable as substitute for § 2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir.) (de novo review of habeas dismissal on jurisdictional grounds)
- Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.) (claims challenging conviction generally fall within § 2255; § 2241 limited to cases where § 2255 is inadequate)
- United States v. Scott, 414 F.3d 815 (7th Cir.) (challenge to grand jury indictment in post-judgment context treated as a § 2255 collateral attack)
- Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721 (3d Cir.) (authorization required before filing successive § 2255 motions)
- Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir.) (historical formulation of the inadequacy/effectiveness exception to § 2255)