Speight v. Nash
This text of Speight v. Nash (Speight v. Nash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
12-6-2006
Speight v. Nash Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2841
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation "Speight v. Nash" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 126. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/126
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. CLD-24 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2841 ___________
CEARFUL SPEIGHT, JR.
v.
JOHN NASH, Warden _______________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-04690) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle ___________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 26, 2006
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 6, 2006) _______________
OPINION OF THE COURT _______________
PER CURIAM
Cearful Speight, Jr. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, dismissing the petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The District Court noted that Speight had previously filed a § 2241 petition raising the
same claims, which it had dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that this Court affirmed on appeal. See Speight v. Nash, D. N.J. Civ. No. 05-319 (FLW); Speight v. Nash, C.A.
No. 05-2011(judgment entered May 31, 2005). As this Court has previously affirmed the
District Court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Speight’s arguments, it
follows that the District Court similarly lacked jurisdiction to consider the identical
arguments brought in the instant petition. We will therefore summarily affirm the District
Court’s order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Speight v. Nash, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speight-v-nash-ca3-2006.