Strickland v. English, 051614 FED11, 13-14082

Docket Nº:13-14082
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:JOSEPH STRICKLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. N. C. ENGLISH, Respondent - Appellee, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before MARTIN, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 16, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

JOSEPH STRICKLAND, Petitioner - Appellant,


N. C. ENGLISH, Respondent - Appellee,


No. 13-14082

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

May 16, 2014


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Before MARTIN, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


Joseph Strickland, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his 168-month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); and one count of possession of more than five grams of a substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii).1 The district court dismissed Mr. Strickland's petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Mr. Strickland had failed to establish the necessary conditions to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), so that his claims might be considered in a § 2241 petition. After reviewing the record and Mr. Strickland's brief, we affirm.


We construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). "Whether a prisoner may bring a [ ] § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) is a question of law we review de novo." Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2013). Under § 2241(a) and (d), a district court has the power to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in custody in that district. This power is limited, however, by § 2255(e), which states:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by [a §2255 motion], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

(emphasis added). The applicability of §2255(e)'s savings clause is a threshold jurisdictional issue, which imposes a subject-matter jurisdictional limit on § 2241 petitions. See Williams, 713 F.3d at 1337-38. Accordingly, before we may reach the...

To continue reading