CLD-331 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1573
___________
LARRY JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN FAIRTON FCI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 1-15-cv-01100)
District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 11, 2015
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 5, 2015)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Larry Johnson, a federal prisoner, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We will affirm.
Following a 1996 trial in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, a jury found Johnson guilty of conspiracy to commit armed carjacking and
multiple counts of carjacking and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. He
received a sentence of 1411 months. This Court affirmed on direct appeal. United States
v. Johnson, C.A. No. 96-1762 (judgment entered July 29, 1997). Johnson sought relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court found the petition time-barred, and this Court
declined to issue a certificate of appealability. United States v. Johnson, C.A. No. 00-
2677 (order entered June 28, 2001). In 2006, Johnson filed a motion to file a second §
2255 motion, which this Court denied. In Re Larry Johnson, C.A. No. 06-1502 (order
entered March 31, 2006). It appears Johnson then filed four 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions in
the District of Arizona. The instant petition, filed in New Jersey, appears to be his fifth.
In this petition, Johnson contended, in essence, that his convictions violate prohibitions
against double jeopardy and ex post facto punishments. He also asserted that he is
actually innocent of the firearms offenses.
The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding Johnson’s
claims were not cognizable under § 2241. Johnson appealed. In this Court, he raises the
same basic claims as he did before the District Court.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review any factual findings for clear error.
2
See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
We may summarily affirm if the appeal does not present a substantial question. See 3d
Cir. LAR 27.4; 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). In certain limited
circumstances, a federal prisoner can seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of
confinement, but only if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir.
1997). However, we have applied that “safety valve” only in rare situations, such as
those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for
actions that an intervening change in law has made non-criminal. See Okereke, 307 F.3d
at 120 (citing Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). 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 has
denied relief, see Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539.
After reviewing Johnson’s claims, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion
that Johnson has not shown that relief under § 2241 is available because the remedy
afforded by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. In sum, Johnson’s claims regarding 18
U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2119 could have been brought under § 2255, and we fail to see how
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), applies to Johnson’s case. As the District
3
Court’s dismissal of Johnson’s petition for lack of jurisdiction clearly is correct, we
conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir.
I.O.P. 10.6. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
4