Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-25-2008
Shawn Davis v. Troy Levi
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1697
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Shawn Davis v. Troy Levi" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 788.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/788
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-140 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1697
___________
SHAWN DAVIS,
Appellant
v.
TROY LEVI, WARDEN, CUSTODIAN-FDC-PHILA.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-0798
(Honorable R. Barclay Surrick)
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 30, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 25, 2008)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Shawn Davis, who is currently confined at the Federal Detention Center in
Philadelphia, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus submitted
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we
will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6.
In 2007, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Davis was found guilty of possession with the intent to
distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. On February 19, 2008, while awaiting sentencing, he filed a habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he claimed that authorities lacked
probable cause to arrest and search him on March 28, 2006. On February 28, 2008, the
District Court issued an order denying the petition, concluding that Davis’ claims were
not cognizable under § 2241. Davis now appeals that decision. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s denial of the petition. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 119 (3d Cir. 2002).
Generally, a challenge to a federal conviction must be brought in a motion to
vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120. A prisoner may proceed
under § 2241 only where the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his confinement. See § 2255(e); Cradle v. United States ex rel.
Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). “A § 2255 motion would be inadequate or
ineffective only if the petitioner can show that a limitation of scope or procedure would
2
prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his
wrongful detention claim.” Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120.
Because Davis is unable to show that a § 2255 motion is an inadequate or
ineffective vehicle for the constitutional claims raised in his petition, we conclude that the
District Court correctly determined that it lacked authority to entertain those claims in the
context of a § 2241 proceeding. Even if it were appropriate to construe Davis’ petition as
a motion under § 2255, the motion would be subject to dismissal as premature because it
was filed prior to sentencing and direct appeal. See Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d
565, 570-72 (3d Cir. 1999).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the appeal does not present a
substantial question. We will therefore summarily affirm the judgment of the District
Court pursuant to 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
3