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12-6-2006 Speight v. Nash Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2841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CLD-24 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 06-2841 ___________ CEARFUL SPEIGHT, JR.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 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.