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Speight v. Nash Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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 [email protected]. CLD-24 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

.

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.

2