United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Bissoon United States District Judge
the Court is Petitioner Jason Sheppard's “Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241” [ECF 207] (“Petitioner's
2241-Motion”). 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “confers
habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal
prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the
execution of his sentence.” McGee v. Martinez,
627 F.3d 933, 935 (3d Cir. 2010). On the other hand, 28
U.S.C. § 2255 permits a federal prisoner to challenge
his conviction or sentence “upon the ground that [it]
was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to
impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of
the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to
collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
2241-Motion, Petitioner contends that his post-conviction
counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and,
therefore, his sentence should be vacated, set aside or
corrected. As such, Petitioner's Motion relates to the
validity of his federal conviction, not the execution of his
sentence, and he may not use Section 2241 “unless a
§ 2255 motion would be ‘inadequate or ineffective,
'” that is, “some limitation of scope or
procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from
affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful
detention claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel.
Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting
Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir.
the question before the Court is whether Section 2255's
remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention, ” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e),
thereby allowing him to utilize Section 2241. It is
Petitioner's burden to establish that the remedy under
2255 is inadequate or ineffective, and the remedy is not
“inadequate or ineffective” solely because
Petitioner cannot meet the stringent requirements of AEDPA.
See Reyes-Racine v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001) (citing Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d
448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000)); In re Dorsainvil, 119
F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997).
argues that the remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1
(2012) and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013).
Petitioner's 2241-Motion, p. 2. In Martinez, the
Supreme Court held: “[w]here, under state law,
claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be
raised in an initial-review collateral proceedings, a
procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from
hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at
trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there
was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was
ineffective.” Martinez, 566 U.S. at 17
(emphasis added). In Trevino, the Supreme Court
extended its holding in Martinez to cases in which a
state's procedural framework, “by reason of its
design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical
case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to
raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on
direct appeal.” Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1921.
to Petitioner's contention, the holdings in
Martinez and Trevino do not apply here. As
explained by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in
Jackman v. Shartle: “Trevino and
Martinez deal with state prisoners'
ability to bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
despite being procedurally barred. They do not address the
ability of federal prisoners to use § 2241 to bring
ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”
Id., 535 Fed. App'x 87, 89 n.5 (3d Cir. Aug. 20,
2013) (emphasis added). As such, Petitioner has not met his
burden of establishing that the remedy under Section 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective; he may not proceed under Section
2241; this Court does not have jurisdiction; and
Petitioner's Motion [ECF 207], therefore, is
 Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U.S.C. § 2253, as
amended) codified standards governing the issuance of a
certificate of appealability for appellate review of a
district court's disposition of a habeas petition.
Federal prisoner-appeals from the denial of a Section 2241
habeas corpus proceeding are not governed by the certificate
of appealability requirement. United States v.
Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2000),