Michael Modena v. United States

450 F. App'x 119

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: November 8, 2011
• Docket: 11-3435
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Modena, a pro se prisoner, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which denied his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Article One, Section Nine, Clause Two of the Organic Constitution.” For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

Modena is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loret-to, Pennsylvania. In November 2009, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and was sentenced to seventy-two months of imprisonment. In July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Modena’s judgment of conviction and sentence. See United States v. Modena, 430 Fed.Appx. 444 (6th Cir.2011).

Before the Sixth Circuit issued its decision however, Modena filed a document in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania titled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Article One, Section Nine, Clause Two of the Organic Constitution.” In the pleading, Modena claimed that his conviction and sentence were infirm on numerous grounds. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court denied the petition, concluding that Modena’s claims should have been raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Modena timely appealed.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343-44, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.1997). Modena has not shown that such a motion would be inadequate to address his claims. Therefore, the District Court properly determined that Modena’s claims should have been raised via a § 2255 motion filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 1

As Modena’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Modena motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

1 . We also conclude that the District Court correctly denied Modena’s requests for in-junctive relief because he failed to demonstrate any basis for granting such relief.