Mario Lenardo Cradle v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel.

PRECEDENTIAL
Filed May 3, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3040
MARIO LENARDO CRADLE,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel.;
JOHN MINER, Warden, Allenwood Federal Prison Camp
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00117)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
S 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third C ircuit
LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 11, 2002
Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO and GREENBERG,
Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 3, 2002)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Mario Lenardo Cradle, an inmate at the Federal Prison
Camp at Allenwood, Pennsylvania, appeals the District
Court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2241. We will affirm.
In 1990, Cradle pleaded guilty in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to
four drug-related charges in violation of 21 U.S.C.
SS 841(a)(1) and 846. He received four concurrent 20-year
sentences. Cradle did not appeal his conviction and
sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The nature
of any post-conviction challenge Cradle launched against
his conviction and sentence is less than clear on the record
presented. Appellant posits conflicting information in his
submissions, contending at one point that he did not
collaterally attack his conviction or sentence through the
filing of a motion under 28 U.S.C. S 2255, while asserting
in another that he has "failed to adhere to the one year
limitation period, as provided for under 28 U.S.C.S 2255."
A review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in
United States v. Cradle, 232 F.3d 890, (4th Cir. 2000),

-- 1 of 3 --

reveals that Cradle did in fact seek relief pursuant to
S 2255. However, the claims Cradle advanced in that
motion are unknown as his appeal from the denial of relief
was dismissed as having been untimely filed. Id .
In January 2001, Cradle filed the underlying S 2241
petition in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence that it did
because the government failed to provide him with notice of
its intent to pursue enhanced sentencing under the
recidivist provisions of 21 U.S.C. S 841(b)(1)(A), as required
by 21 U.S.C. S 851(a)(1). Despite conceding that he did not
file a direct appeal challenging his sentence or challenging
the enhanced penalty through the filing of a S 2255 motion,
Cradle contends that a S 2241 petition is the proper avenue
for him to raise this claim because he is now barred from
presenting his claim to the sentencing court in a motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2255.
The district court summarily dismissed the petition,
having concluded that Cradle failed to show that his
remedy under S 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention merely because he may now be time
barred from challenging the enhanced penalty through the
filing of a S 2255 motion. Additionally, the court determined
2
that Cradle’s claim did not fall within the narrow"savings
clause" exception set forth in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245
(3d Cir. 1997).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. SS 1291 and 2253(a). We exercise plenary review
over the district court’s legal conclusions and apply a
clearly erroneous standard to its factual findings. See
Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 512 (3d Cir. 1998).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly
dismissed the underlying S 2241 petition through which
Cradle sought to challenge his sentence.
Cradle argues that a challenge to the district court’s
jurisdiction can be raised "any place and at any time," see
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 9, and since he is
procedurally precluded from proceeding under S 2255, he
must be afforded an opportunity to attack his sentence
through a S 2241 petition. However, under the explicit
terms of 28 U.S.C. S 2255, unless a S 2255 motion would be
"inadequate or ineffective," a habeas corpus petition under
S 2241 cannot be entertained by the court. See also
Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971).
A S 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where
the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or
procedure would prevent a S 2255 proceeding from
affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his
wrongful detention claim. Id. (quoting United States ex rel.

-- 2 of 3 --

Leguillou v. Davis, 212 F.2d 681, 684 (3d Cir. 1954)); see
also In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249-52. It is the inefficacy
of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is
determinative. Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C.
Cir. 1986). 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 S 2255. See In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d at 251; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 758
(6th Cir. 1999). The provision exists to ensure that
petitioners have a fair opportunity to seek collateral relief,
not to enable them to evade procedural requirements. See
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52 (listing cases in which
3
S 2255 is not "inadequate or ineffective" even though
petitioner is unable to raise a successful claim under it).
There is no doubt that the claim Appellant presents in
this petition falls within the purview of S 2255. Yet Cradle
cites neither an intervening change in the law nor any
extraordinary circumstances (in fact, he readily concedes
that he had multiple chances to challenge his sentence) to
establish that his remedy under S 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective. 28 U.S.C. S 2255; see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d
at 251-52. In this context, Cradle cannot contend that
S 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to protect him, even if he
cannot prevail under it.
Therefore, because it clearly appears that no substantial
question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the district court’s order.
A True Copy:
Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4

-- 3 of 3 --