IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11011

Summary Calendar

NAKIA HARRIS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; KAREN EDENFIELD,

Warden,

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CV-52

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nakia Harris, federal prisoner # 13178-041, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, challenges the district court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In it, Harris challenges his conviction in the District

of Minnesota for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 26, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-11011 Document: 00511934279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
No. 11-11011

He contends that (1) the district court had jurisdiction over his petition

because both he and his custodian, the warden of his prison facility, are within

the Northern District of Texas; (2) the requirements of the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act violate the Suspension Clause and the Tenth

Amendment and render the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 inadequate or

ineffective; and (3) the Minnesota district court did not have jurisdiction to

convict and sentence him because the Controlled Substances Act, as applied to

his case, violates the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. We review

the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222

F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000).

A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for

seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Section 2255 is the primary mechanism for collaterally attacking a federal

sentence, and a § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. Id. Section

2241 is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in which a

sentence is executed, and a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district of

incarceration. Id. “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity

of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255

motion.” Id. at 452.

Because the claims raised by Harris in his § 2241 petition attacked the

validity of his Minnesota conviction and sentence, the district court did not err

in its determination that the claims would be properly brought in a § 2255

motion. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451. As Harris was sentenced in Minnesota, the

district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his

petition as a § 2255 motion. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997).

A prisoner can attack the validity of his conviction in a § 2241 petition only

if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e). Kinder, 222

F.3d at 212. It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the remedy under § 2255

would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 

2

Case: 11-11011 Document: 00511934279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
No. 11-11011

§ 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The petitioner must establish that his claim (1) “is based on a retroactively

applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may

have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “was foreclosed by circuit

law at the time when the claim should have been raised.” Reyes-Requena, 243

F.3d at 904. Harris has failed to make the required showing.

To the extent that Harris argues that the dismissal of his § 2241 petition

impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus, his contention lacks merit. 

We have held that the restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the

savings clause of § 2255 do not violate the Suspension Clause. See Wesson v.

United States Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002);

Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901 n.19. 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-11011 Document: 00511934279 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2012