Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01961/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01961-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Taillon
Appellant
Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
Appellee

Document Text:

CLD-001 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-1961

____________

JOSEPH TAILLON,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(W.D. Pa. No. 3-14-cv-00176)

District Judge: Kim R. Gibson

__________________________________

Submitted on a Motion for Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

and for Possible Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

October 2, 2015

Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 8, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Joseph Taillon appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1961 Document: 003112095672 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2015
2

Taillon, a federal prisoner, was charged along with other individuals in an 

Indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire 

with racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); racketeering conspiracy, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343; and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

371, 1341, see United States v. Taillon, D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00153.

1

 On May 27, 2010, 

Taillon pleaded guilty to all four offenses. He was sentenced on October 7, 2010 to a 

term of imprisonment of 168 months. His projected release date is December 10, 2019.

In 2011, Taillon filed a motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The petition 

was denied on the merits by the sentencing court, and the Court of Appeals for the First 

Circuit denied Taillon a certificate of appealability thereafter.

Taillon, who is incarcerated in Pennsylvania, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania, seeking immediate release on the ground that the sentencing 

court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him. Specifically, he alleged that no 

Complaint, made under oath before a magistrate judge and establishing probable cause, 

was ever filed in his case, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 3, and thus the warrant that was 

issued for his arrest was invalid under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4. In a response, the Government 

argued that the § 2241 petition should be dismissed because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides 

 

1 Taillon and his coconspirators, operators of a telemarketing scheme out of Canada, told 

their victims that they had won large Canadian sweepstakes or lottery prizes but that they 

had to send cashier’s checks to post office boxes in Montreal to cover the expenses 

associated with delivering those prizes. Taillon was eventually arrested in France and 

extradited to the United States.

Case: 15-1961 Document: 003112095672 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2015
3

the presumptive means to challenge the validity of a conviction. The Magistrate Judge 

issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the § 2241 petition be 

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. After Taillon filed objections to the 

Report and Recommendation, the District Court adopted the Report and

Recommendation and dismissed the petition in a judgment entered on February 10, 2015.

Taillon appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk granted 

him leave to appeal in forma pauperis and advised him that the appeal was subject to 

summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary action under Third Cir. 

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The Warden has filed a motion for summary action and 

Taillon has filed a response in opposition.

We will grant the Government’s motion and summarily affirm the order of the 

District Court because no substantial question is presented by this appeal. Third Circuit 

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court properly dismissed Taillon’s § 2241 

petition because a motion filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court is the presumptive 

means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence. See

Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). In certain limited 

circumstances, a petitioner may seek relief under § 2241 if the remedy provided by § 

2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, see In re: Dorsainvil, 

119 F.3d 245, 249-51 (3d Cir. 1997), but § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective simply 

because the sentencing court does not grant relief on the petitioner’s § 2255 motion or 

because the petitioner is unable to meet the gatekeeping requirements, 8 U.S.C. § 

2255(h), for a second § 2255 motion. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 

536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The “safety valve” applies only where the 

Case: 15-1961 Document: 003112095672 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/08/2015
4

petitioner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for actions deemed to 

be non-criminal by an intervening change in law. Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing 

Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). A § 2241 petition may not be used to litigate a claim, such 

as the one raised by Taillon, which could have been pursued on direct appeal.2

For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the Government’s motion and summarily 

affirm the order of the District Court dismissing Taillon’s § 2241 petition for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction

 

2

In any event, the claim is frivolous because “the grand jury supersedes the complaint 

process by returning an indictment.” Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214, 220 (1965). 

See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 7.

Case: 15-1961 Document: 003112095672 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/08/2015