The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Caputo)
Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood (FCI-Allenwood) in White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.*fn1 (Doc. 1, Pet.) Named as the sole respondent is the United States of America.*fn2
This matter is now before the Court for screening. "Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face." McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 2572, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994); United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000). Habeas Rule 4 requires the court to examine a petition prior to ordering an answer and to summarily dismiss the petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4 , applicable through Rule 1(b).
After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, for reasons stated below, the petition will be summarily dismissed as Mr. Santos has failed to demonstrate that his remedy pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for challenging the convictions is inadequate or ineffective.*fn3
A. Conviction and Procedural History
Following a jury trial, Felix Santos was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and attempting to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 942(c)(1), (2), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 12, 2000, Felix Santos was sentenced to a total term of 248 months imprisonment.
On May 15, 2000, Mr. Santos filed a timely notice of appeal. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Santos' arguments and affirmed his conviction on September 25, 2001. See United States v. Santos, 275 F.3d 51 (Table)(11 Cir. 2001)(No. 00-12578). On December 17, 2001, Mr. Santos filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See electronic docket sheet, Santos v. United States of America, 1:01-CV-5024-DMM (S.D. Fla.). On June 14, 2002, the trial court denied the motion. On November 25, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Felix Santos' application for a certificate of appealability.
Mr. Santos then filed two separate motions for a reduction of sentence, both of which were denied by the trial court, as were his appeals of these orders by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Santos, 310 Fed. Appx. 341 (11th Cir. 2009). Mr. Santos then filed a Petition for writ of Audita Querla which was denied by the trial court on August 27, 2009. See electronic docket sheet, United States v. Santos, 1:99-CR-0716-DMM (S.D. Fla.)
B. Allegations of the Present Petition
Mr. Santos suggests in his petition that his sentence and conviction are illegal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction; the government failed to the proper legal statutes in his indictment; failed to make a prima facie case against; his court appointed counsel was incompetent; the government used illegally obtained evidence against him; and that he was arrested by a Miami Dade Police Officer who lacked the "authority to arrest [him] without valid delegations orders" from the federal government. (Doc. 1, Pet.) Based on the above, Mr. Santos concludes the "judgment obtained [against him] bogus" and "utterly void of all legal effect." (Id.)
Depending on the circumstances, a federal prisoner may challenge his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). Ordinarily, when challenging the validity of a conviction and sentence, a federal prisoner is limited to filing a motion pursuant to section 2255. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); Russell v. Martinez, 325 Fed. Appx. 45, 47 (3d Cir. 2009)("a section 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence.") "A prisoner may proceed under § 2241 only where the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his confinement." Norman v. Levi, 305 Fed. Appx. 820, 821 (3d Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249. The inadequacy or ineffectiveness must be "a limitation of scope or procedure ... prevent[ing] a § 2255 proceeding from affording [petitioner] a full hearing and adjudication of [a] wrongful detention claim." Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002)(per curiam). "It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is determinative." Cradle, 290 F.3d 538-39 (citing Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Hence, "[s]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 the amended § 2255." Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. A petitioner therefore cannot invoke § 2241 merely because he already ...