Danny Lee Johnson v. TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Allenwood Federal Penitentiary

HLD-17 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-2528
________________
DANNY LEE JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden,
Allenwood Federal Penitentiary;
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01323)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 13, 2006
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed : November 16, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Danny Lee Johnson, a prisoner incarcerated at the United States Prison-

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Allenwood at White Deer, Pennsylvania, appeals the order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his motion to reconsider its order
transferring venue and to reopen the proceedings regarding his habeas petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
Johnson pleaded guilty and was convicted in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia of burglary, robbery, kidnaping, and related crimes. The District of Columbia
Court of Appeals affirmed in 1997. Johnson then unsuccessfully pursued several forms
of post-conviction relief, including habeas relief under D.C. Code § 23-110. In July
2005, Johnson filed the section 2241 habeas petition at issue in this matter, asserting that
his several unsuccessful attempts to challenge his conviction in the District of Columbia
courts demonstrates that the section 23-110 remedy is inadequate and ineffective to test
the legality of his detention. On August 23, 2005, the District Court transferred venue of
the section 2241 petition to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Johnson filed several motions to reconsider and to reinstate the action, arguing his claims
that his conviction was unconstitutionally obtained. The District Court denied the
motions on January 9, 2006, noting that Johnson did not raise any arguments that call the
District Court’s transfer order into doubt.
On March 31, 2006, Johnson filed yet another motion to reconsider and to reopen
the proceedings, again challenging the validity of his District of Columbia conviction, and
again arguing that the remedy of D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate and ineffective. In

-- 2 of 3 --

The Court notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted for possible1
dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and for possible summary action. To the extent
that Johnson’s March 31, 2006 motion sought relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, we do not dismiss the appeal of the District Court’s denial of
that motion.
3
addition, Johnson alleged that both the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had
recently denied him relief on his claims. On April 20, 2006, the District Court denied
Johnson’s motion, for the same reasons stated in the January 9, 2006 order. Johnson
appeals and has filed a memorandum to this Court.1
Because this appeal presents “no substantial question,” we will summarily affirm.
3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Johnson’s March 31, 2006 motion did not present any
argument that the transfer order was in error. Johnson sought to have the District Court
reopen the proceedings in order to have substantive consideration given to his section
2241 petition. However, according to his own allegations, his petition already has been
duly considered and ruled upon by the transferee court, the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, and the proceedings have ended. Thus, any question
stemming from the propriety of the transfer order is now moot. We discern no error in
the District Court’s denial of Johnson’s March 31, 2006 motion.
We will affirm the order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --