United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
F. Saporito, Jr. Magistrate Judge
N. BLOCH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Roscoe Chambers ("Petitioner") is serving a
sentence of imprisonment of 360 months imposed by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
See United States v. Chambers, No. 3:12-cr-00071
(S.D. Iowa May 17.2013'). aff 'd per curiam,
554 Fed.Appx. 539 (8Ih Cir. 2014). cert,
denied. 135 S.Ct. 1018 (2015). He is currently serving
this sentence at USP Lewisburg, in Union County,
Pennsylvania, and was located at that facility when he filed
the instant habeas corpus petition with this court in the
above-captioned matter on October 25, 2018. The case was
assigned to United States District Judge Robert D. Mariani
and referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F.
Saporito, Jr., in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The matter was subsequently
reassigned from Judge Mariani to the undersigned.
Judge Saporito's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9),
filed on November 20, 2018, recommended that Petitioner's
Pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 ("Habeas Petition"), be
dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file
a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that
imposed the sentence he is now serving, subject to the
pre-authorization requirements of Sections 2244 and 2255(h),
as they may apply. In so recommending, Judge Saporito
explained that Petitioner's Habeas Petition did not
address the execution of his sentence, but rather its
validity, emphasizing that Petitioner's arguments went to
the sentencing court's jurisdiction and the application
of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in regard to his
sentence at No. 3:12-cr-00071. Judge Saporito further
discussed that Petitioner had previously attempted to
challenge his conviction and sentence in the Southern
District of Iowa under Section 2255 and that these attempts
had been unsuccessful. Petitioner was informed that he could
file objections to the Report, and he did file objections and
a brief in support thereof on December 7, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 11
in those objections and brief merits rejection of the Report
or extended discussion by this Court. Indeed, Petitioner only
further demonstrates that the Habeas Petition in this case
challenges the sentencing court's determination of
sentence, and not the execution of that sentence,
discussed by Judge Saporito, challenges to the validity of a
federal sentence must be made pursuant to Section 2255 in the
court that imposed sentence. See Boumediene v. Bush,
553 U.S. 723, 774-75 (2008); Coady v. Vaughn, 251
F.3d 480, 484-85 (3d Cir. 2001). Moreover, for the reasons
set forth in the Report, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that a Section 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e). As Judge Saporito explained, a 2255 motion is not
inadequate or ineffective merely because the prisoner cannot
meet the gate keeping requirements of Section 2255.
See Snype v. United States, 609 Fed.Appx.
60, 61-62 (3d Cir. 2015); Hazard v. Samuels, 206
Fed.Appx. 234, 236 (3d Cir. 2006); Shelton v. United
States, 201 Fed.Appx. 123, 124 (3d Cir. 2006);
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.
2002); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d
Cir. 1997); United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643,
647-48 (3d Cir. 2000). Likewise, Petitioner does not assert
that he is "actually innocent" of his crimes of
conviction, but rather alleges various legal and procedural
defects in his conviction and sentence. Such claims do not
render the remedies of Section 2255 inadequate or
ineffective. See Sorrell v. Bledsoe, 437 Fed.Appx.
94, 96 (3d Cir. 2011); Galeano v. United States.
Civ. No. 08-2392 (JEI), 2008 WL 2705018, at *3 (D. N.J. July
8, 2008). Since Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective
in this case, Petitioner must seek review under that statute,
which, as discussed above, requires that he seek relief in
the Southern District of Iowa.
after de novo review of the pleadings and the
documents in the case, together with the Report and
Recommendation, the following order is entered:
NOW, this 18th day of July, 2019, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections are overruled and the
Habeas Petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
to Petitioner's right to file a motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed his instant
sentence, subject to the pre-authorization requirements of 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h), as they may apply.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
9), filed on November 20, 2018, by Magistrate Judge Joseph F.
Saporito, Jr., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
 The Court further notes that Plaintiff
did, in his Habeas Petition, indicate that he was challenging
the validity of his conviction and sentence as ...