Scribd
Upload
27 views3 pages

Charles Albert v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2010)

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Charles Albert's appeal of the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court dismissed the petition because § 2255 motions are the proper way to challenge a conviction, not a § 2241 petition, and Albert did not show that § 2255 would be inadequate. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the expiration of limitations for a § 2255 motion does not render § 2255 inadequate.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
27 views3 pages

Charles Albert v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2010)

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding Charles Albert's appeal of the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court dismissed the petition because § 2255 motions are the proper way to challenge a conviction, not a § 2241 petition, and Albert did not show that § 2255 would be inadequate. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the expiration of limitations for a § 2255 motion does not render § 2255 inadequate.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

HLD-111 (April 2010)

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1157
___________
CHARLES E. ALBERT,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil No. 09-cv-00258)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
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
April 30, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed May 21, 2010)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Albert, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. We will affirm.
1

Albert filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his


2006 conviction for violating federal child pornography laws. Among other things,
Albert claimed a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights based on an allegedly illegal
search of his home and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
Albert does not state in his habeas petition in which court he was convicted, but
correspondence attached to his petition appears to indicate that he was convicted in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Alberts petition be dismissed
because a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed in the sentencing
court is the exclusive means to challenge his conviction. The Magistrate Judge noted that
Albert did not satisfy the narrow exception allowing a petition to be filed under 2241
where a 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
detention. In his objections to the Magistrate Judges report, Albert stated that he may not
seek relief under 2255 because the statute of limitations has passed. He also argued the
merits of his Fourth Amendment claim. The District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judges report and recommendation and dismissed the petition, noting that Alberts
objections made clear that his remedy, if any, is by way of a 2255 motion. This appeal
followed.
As recognized by the District Court, [m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their

convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution. Okereke v.


United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Although a petitioner may challenge a
conviction pursuant to 2241 where a 2255 motion would be inadequate or
ineffective, a 2255 motion is not inadequate or ineffective because the sentencing
court denies relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is
unable to meet 2255's gatekeeping requirements. Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536,
538-39 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Rather, a 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective
only where the petitioner demonstrates 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. Id. at 538. See also In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 248-52
(3d Cir. 1997) (construing inadequate or ineffective provision of 2255).
Albert has not made such a showing. The fact that Albert may be timebarred from filing a 2255 motion does not render a 2255 motion inadequate or
ineffective. Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Courts order.1
__________________________

Because Alberts claim lacks arguable merit, his request for appointment of counsel
is denied. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).

You might also like