Derrick Brown v. Bryan Bledsoe ( 2012 )

ALD-289 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1910
___________
DERRICK LAKEITH BROWN,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN BRIAN A. BLEDSOE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-00301)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 20, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 3, 2012 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick L. Brown appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm.
Brown was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee of various drug and firearms offenses. In 2008, he was
sentenced to 387 months of imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on
direct appeal. Thereafter, Brown was transferred to the United States Penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Brown continued to challenge his conviction and sentence,
filing at least three petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed those petitions, effectively holding that
Brown failed to show that the remedy provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate
or ineffective. See Brown v. Bledsoe, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-01436 (order entered Nov.
10, 2009), affirmed, No. 09-4487, 367 F. App’x 294 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2010) (not
precedential); Brown v. Bledsoe, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-02258 (order entered Nov. 23,
2009), affirmed, No. 09-4493, 366 F. App’x 326 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2010) (not
precedential); Brown v. United States, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-1210 (order entered June 18,
2010), affirmed, No. 10-2895, 413 F. App’x 514 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2011) (not
precedential).
In February 2012, Brown filed the instant § 2241 petition, stating that he is
“challenging my unlawful and illegal confinement,” and seeking to be released “from an
over-turned unconstitutional conviction and sentence.” The District Court dismissed the
petition, again concluding that Brown failed to demonstrate that a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention.
Brown appealed.
2
We have jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our
review of the District Court’s dismissal of Brown’s § 2241 petition is plenary. Cradle v.
U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). Summary affirmance is proper
when “it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented or that subsequent
precedent or a change in circumstances warrants such action.” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
A motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is the presumptive
means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A petitioner can seek relief
under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997). A
§ 2255 motion is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because the petitioner cannot
meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120, or
because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner,
290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Rather, the “safety valve” provided under
§ 2255 is extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusual situations, such as
those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a
crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in law. Okereke, 307
F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). We agree with the District Court
that Brown’s situation is not the rare one rendering § 2255 inadequate or ineffective.
Indeed, Brown’s challenge to his allegedly “unconstitutional conviction and sentence” is
properly considered under § 2255. See United States v. Eakman, 378 F.3d 294, 297 (3d
3
Cir. 2004) (explaining that a prisoner attacking the validity of his sentence must proceed
under § 2255).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by
this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
4