Yakov Drabovskiy v. Warden Allenwood FCI

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6. BLD-051

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 1

BLD-051

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3272
___________

YAKOV G. DRABOVSKIY,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN OF THE FCI ALLENWOOD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-01125)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 4, 2014
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 11, 2014)
_________________
OPINION*
_________________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

Appellant Yakov G. Drabovskiy appeals the District Court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his habeas corpus petition. For the reasons that follow, we will
summarily affirm.
I.
In 2010, Drabovskiy was convicted in the Western District of Louisiana of twenty
violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(B) for failing to depart the United States after having
been ordered removed. United States v. Drabovskiy, W.D. La. Crim. No. 2:09-cr-00146.
He was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison and a term of supervised release.
Drabovskiy has since made numerous unsuccessful attempts to challenge his
conviction and confinement. Drabovskiy first appealed directly to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals. While his criminal appeal was pending, Drabovskiy, who had been
transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood, Pennsylvania, filed two
habeas corpus petitions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. See M.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 4:10-cv-01830 & 4:10-cv-02226. Adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the District Court denied his
first petition without prejudice because Drabovskiy had not exhausted his direct appeal
and his claims did not fall under the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which codifies the
power of the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus. The R&R also explained that
the claims should have been initiated in the Western District of Louisiana as a motion to
vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To the extent that the
petition sought to challenge potential detention by immigration authorities that might
2

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

occur upon the completion of Drabovskiy’s criminal sentence, those claims were
dismissed as premature. The second petition was dismissed without prejudice as an
unauthorized successive application that was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and that
contained similarly unexhausted, misdirected, and premature claims.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Drabovskiy’s criminal conviction in
2011. See United States v. Drabovskiy, 435 F. App’x 319 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
In February 2013, Drabovskiy once again sought to challenge his conviction in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania under the auspices of § 2241. The District Court
dismissed that petition without prejudice, construing the filing as an unauthorized
successive habeas petition that was barred under § 2244(a). See Drabovskiy v. Warden
FCI Allenwood, No. 4-10-cv-2226, 2010 WL 5463069 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2010).
Drabovskiy appealed. The Court concluded that the application for relief was properly
characterized as a § 2255 motion, and that it was the first such motion to follow his direct
appeal. See Drabovskiy v. Warden FCI Allenwood, 534 F. App’x 98 (3d Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, the Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with
instructions that it be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana, the court that
imposed the sentence. Id. The Western District of Louisiana then dismissed
Drabovskiy’s § 2255 motion as untimely under the one-year period of limitations set
forth in § 2255(f)(1). See Drabovskiy v. Warden FCI Allenwood, W.D. La. Crim. No. 209-cr-00146, Order of May 9, 2014. Drabovskiy then filed an action “for deprivation of
liberty due to indefinite detention” in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in which he
3

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 4

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

challenged prior and potential future detention by the Department of Homeland Security
related to his order of removal. See M.D. Pa. No. 3:14-cv-00451. The District Court
dismissed those claims as unactionable and the Court summarily affirmed. See C.A. No.
14-1871.
In June of 2014, Drabovskiy initiated this action in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Once again, he sought to challenge his conviction, characterizing his filing
as a “Constitutional Habeas Corpus Petition.” The District Court dismissed the action
without prejudice. The District Court reasoned that because he was challenging the
validity of his conviction, Drabovskiy was limited to seeking relief by way of a § 2255
motion, which should have been brought before the Western District of Louisiana.
Furthermore, because this was not Drabovskiy’s first § 2255 motion, he required
permission from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. The District Court also determined that nothing in Drabovskiy’s motion
served to trigger the safety valve provision of § 2255(e) in order to permit him to proceed
with a habeas petition under § 2241. Drabovskiy appealed. For the reasons that follow,
we will summarily affirm.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District
Court’s legal conclusions is plenary, and our consideration of its factual findings is under
a clearly erroneous standard of review. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290
F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Because no substantial issue is raised on
4

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 5

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

appeal, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s decision. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4;
3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
III.
The District Court did not err in dismissing Drabovskiy’s § 2241 petition for
habeas relief. Drabovskiy insists that the District Court should have construed his filing
as an application for a writ of habeas corpus and not a motion under § 2255. His
motion—which challenges his conviction and raises, among other things, claims of
procedural inadequacies with his indictment, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective
assistance of counsel—is generally in keeping with, and thus was fairly characterized by
the District Court as, a motion arising under § 2255.
Moreover, we concur with the District Court that the claims must be brought as a
§ 2255 motion in this instance. It is well-established that a prisoner’s claims challenging
the legality of his federal conviction and sentence must ordinarily be raised in a motion
under § 2255 filed in the sentencing court. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d
Cir. 1997). Such claims may not be raised in a § 2241 petition except where the remedy
under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. As noted by the District Court, “[s]ection 2255 is not
inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the
one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. Rather, we
have repeatedly emphasized that the so-called “safety valve” provision of § 2255(e) is
5

Case: 14-3272

Document: 003111818299

Page: 6

Date Filed: 12/11/2014

extremely narrow and applied only in rare circumstances. See, e.g., In re Dorsainvil, 119
F.3d at 251-52. The dismissal of Drabovskiy’s prior § 2255 motion on the grounds that it
is barred by the one-year statute of limitations period did not render § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective. Id. Drabovskiy presents no viable alternative justification for the application
of the safety valve provision, and thus a § 2255 motion remains the sole mechanism by
which his request for relief may be presented.
The District Court also correctly observed that it could not properly entertain a
§ 2255 motion from Drabovskiy because the Western District of Louisiana had
previously considered a similar motion. Section 2255(h) requires that a second or
successive § 2255 motion be certified by the appropriate court of appeals in order to be
considered by a district court. And § 2255 motions should be brought in the court that
imposed the sentence, in this instance, the Western District of Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(a). Thus, the appropriate Court of Appeals from which Drabovskiy needs to seek
certification is that of the Fifth Circuit.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order
dismissing the petition. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

6