The opinion
FILED
SCRANTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 10 202
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PER OT
MARK BROWN, DEPUTY CLERK
Petitioner CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00921
V. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
WARDEN RICARD,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM
This is a habeas corpus case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Petitioner,
Mark Brown (“Brown”), who is presently incarcerated in the Schuylkill Federal Correctional
Institution (“FCI-Schuylkill”), challenges his 2013 conviction and sentence for possession of
a firearm by a felon in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The Court
will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 24, 2023, Brown pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) and was sentenced to a 188-months term of
imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release. United States v. Brown, No.
2:13-cr-71-001 (D. Me. Sept. 24, 2013), ECF No. 33.
Brown appealed the judgment of sentence on October 1, 2013 to the First Circuit Court
of Appeals. Brown, No. 2:13-cr-71-001, ECF No. 37. The appeal was denied on August 27,
2014. United States v. Brown, No. 13-2232 (1st Cir. filed Aug. 27, 2014).
In September of 2021, Brown sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A), which was denied for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies. Brown,
No. 2:13-cr-71-001, Doc. 58.
On June 4, 2024, the Court received and docketed Brown’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 US.C. § 2241. The Court entered an Administrative Order requiring
the payment of the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30-days.
(Doc. 3). Brown paid the requisite filing fee on June 17, 2024. (Doc. 4). The Court will now
screen the petition pursuant to Rule 4.
Il. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
a district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it is plain from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. District courts
have the discretion to apply this rule in habeas corpus cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 1.
If. DISCUSSION
The Court will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the review of the
petition under Rule 4. Federal prisoners seeking post-conviction relief from their judgment of
conviction or the sentence imposed are generally required to bring their collateral challenges
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120
(3d Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner may only challenge his conviction through a Section 2241
habeas corpus petition ifa Section 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 471 (2023).
To demonstrate that a Section 2255 motion is‘“inadequate or ineffective,” the
petitioner must show “that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255
proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention
claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel, Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). Significantly, Section
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 ... § 2255.” Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. “It is the inefficacy
of the [Section 2255] remedy, not the personal inability to utilize it, that is determinative.”
Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538.
The Court will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Brown
has not shown that the remedy offered by Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to protect
his rights such that he can proceed under Section 2241. His claims, which challenge the
constitutionality of the statute he was convicted under, plainly could have been raised in a
Section 2255 motion. The docket of the underlying criminal conviction in the District of
Maine demonstrates that he has failed to file a motion pursuant to Section 2255. The fact that
Brown may now be outside the statute of limitations for a Section 2255 motion does not
render Section 2255 relief inadequate or ineffective. Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538-39.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Brown's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 will
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the case will be closed. An appropriate order follows.
Dated: July 10,2024 Karoline Wlohalehich
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge