CLD-258                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 12-3973
                                      ___________

                                  TIMOTHY HATTEN,
                                             Appellant

                                            v.

                                BRYAN BLEDSOE
                      ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                               (D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-00772)
                     District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
                      ____________________________________

                           Submitted on a Motion to Reopen,
       for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and for Possible Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                     May 31, 2013
             Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed : June 14, 2013)
                                      _________

                                       OPINION
                                       _________

PER CURIAM

       Timothy Hatten is serving a prison sentence imposed by the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Florida for federal narcotics law violations. See United

States v. Glinton, 

 (11th Cir. 1998). Hatten filed a petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania, 1 claiming constitutional and legal violations during the investigation

leading to his arrest and conviction. The District Court dismissed his petition and denied

his motions for reconsideration. Hatten timely appealed. 2 We will summarily affirm the

District Court’s judgment and orders. 3

         The District Court correctly dismissed Hatten’s petition. “Motions 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, 

, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner can seek relief under

§ 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 

, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). The “inadequate or ineffective” exception is narrow, and

does not apply simply because a petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping

requirements of the amended § 2255. Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (quoting In re

Dorsainvil, 

, 251 (3d Cir. 1997)). In his motions for reconsideration, Hatten


1
    It appears that Hatten was housed in Pennsylvania at the time he filed his petition.
2
  The appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the fees. Hatten thereafter filed a motion to
reopen (which we also construe as a motion to file out of time), and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. We grant the motion to reopen and the motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.
3
  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Our review of the
District Court’s legal conclusions is plenary. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 

, 535
(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2012).
                                                2
contended that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to raise his claims because at the time

he filed his original, unsuccessful § 2555 motion, he did not have access to two Florida

state court decisions that would have supported his position. But section 2255 is not

rendered “inadequate or ineffective” merely because a prisoner was unsuccessful in

seeking relief under section 2255 or is procedurally barred from filing a section 2255

motion. Id. at 120-21; see also Cradle 290 F.3d at 539. Hatten was therefore not entitled

to raise his claims under § 2241. 4 Accordingly, the District Court lacked jurisdiction

over Hatten’s claims and correctly dismissed the action. 5

       Because Hatten’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the judgment of the District Court and the orders denying reconsideration. See 3d

Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.




4
 Any § 2255 motion attacking Hatten’s conviction or sentence should be brought in the
Southern District of Florida—his court of conviction—and not in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. See Application of Galante, 

, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971). Of
course, because Hatten has already brought a § 2255 action, he cannot now file another
without leave from the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
5
 Though Hatten’s brief was not formally filed in this appeal, in reaching our decision, we
have considered the arguments raised in his brief.
                                             3