Anibal Soler v. Ricardo Martinez , 435 F. App'x 69 ( 2011 )

CLD-207 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1442
___________
ANIBAL SOLER,
Appellant
v.
RICARDO MARTINEZ
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 1:10-cv-02554)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 9, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 7, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Anibal Soler appeals from the District Court‟s order dismissing his habeas petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the
District Court‟s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Soler, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood (“USP
Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania, was convicted in 2000 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts of distribution of heroin resulting in
death, and related drug crimes. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Soler appealed,
and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Soler‟s convictions as to Counts 1, 3, and
5, but reversed his convictions as to Counts 2 and 4. See United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d
146 (1st Cir. 2002). Soler later filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme
Court that was denied. In 2010, he filed a motion with the First Circuit Court of Appeals
to recall the mandate. The motion was denied. Based on the record, it appears that Soler
never filed any post-conviction motions in the Massachusetts District Court.
In December 2010, Soler filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the district in which he is
currently confined at USP Allenwood. In his § 2241 petition, Soler alleged that trial
counsel was ineffective and that Soler was convicted on insufficient evidence. The
District Court sua sponte dismissed the petition, and Soler filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(a). We exercise plenary review over the District Court‟s legal conclusions and
review its factual findings for clear error. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 314
(3d Cir. 2007).
A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence, as Soler
does here, generally must pursue collateral relief under § 2255 in the district court that
imposed his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, case law has established a
2
narrow exception to the general rule, and allows a prisoner to file a § 2241 petition in the
district of confinement if “a § 2255 motion would be „inadequate or ineffective[.]‟”
Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “A
§ 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the petitioner demonstrates that
some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording
him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Id. “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 § 2255.” Id. at 539.
We agree with the District Court that Soler has not demonstrated that a § 2255
motion provides inadequate or ineffective means to raise his claims. Soler‟s argument
appears to be that because he is a seventy-five year old, non-English speaking Puerto
Rican who lacks formal education beyond the first grade, he should be excused from not
timely filing a § 2255 motion in the Massachusetts District Court. Although some delay
in filing a post-conviction motion is understandable given Soler‟s unfamiliarity with
English and his lack of education, that alone does not place Soler‟s case in the narrow
class of exceptions that would allow him to file a § 2241 petition.
Based on the above, the District Court properly dismissed Soler‟s § 2241 petition.
Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
District Court‟s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
3