Case: 14-14463 Date Filed: 03/10/2015 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14463
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-02447-SCJ
STEPHEN TERRY BRITT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, USP ATLANTA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 10, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Terry Britt appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Having already litigated a 28
Case: 14-14463 Date Filed: 03/10/2015 Page: 2 of 2
U.S.C. § 2255 petition, Britt now relies on the savings clause of § 2255(e). The
savings clause is a jurisdictional provision, Williams v. Warden, 713 F.3d 1332,
1340 (11th Cir. 2013), so Britt bears the burden of showing that § 2255 is
“inadequate or ineffective” before the district court has jurisdiction to review his
§ 2241 petition, see Turner v. Warden, 709 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2013).
To meet that burden, Britt must show that: (1) his claim is based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the holding of that Supreme
Court decision establishes that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense; and (3)
circuit law squarely foreclosed his claim at the time it otherwise should have been
raised. Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 1999). Britt has not
claimed that he is relying on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision.
See id. The district court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider his arguments. See
Williams, 713 F.3d at 1339–40.
AFFIRMED.
2