IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10880

Summary Calendar

PAUL JEFFERSON BRADDOCK,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UnitedStates 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-81

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Jefferson Braddock, federal prisoner # 31314-037, 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, Braddock challenges his three

convictions in the Western District of Michigan for distribution of cocaine base.

Braddock contends: the district court had jurisdiction over his petition

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 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: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 11-10880

the Northern District of Texas; 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to

test the legality of his detention; and dismissal of his petition pursuant to § 2255

impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus. He also briefs the merits of

his claim that his convictions were unconstitutional, asserting the Controlled

Substances Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds the Government’s

power under the Commerce Clause. A district court’s dismissal of a § 2241

petition is reviewed 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”: § 2255 is for collaterally attacking a federal

sentence, and the motion must be filed in the sentencing court; § 2241 is for

challenging the manner in which a federal sentence is executed, and the petition

must be filed where the prisoner is incarcerated. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448,

451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A [§] 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a

federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a [§] 2255 motion.” Id.

at 452.

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

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

determining the claims must be pursued in a § 2255 motion. Id. at 451. And,

as Braddock was sentenced in Michigan, the district court correctly determined

that it lacked jurisdiction to construe his petition as a § 2255 motion. Ojo v. INS,

106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Because all the errors [the prisoner] alleges

[occurred before or during sentencing], they must be addressed in a § 2255

petition, and the only court with jurisdiction to hear that is the court that

sentenced him”.).

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

if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause found in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(e). Kinder, 222 F.3d at 212. For that clause to apply, the petitioner must

show the remedy under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States,

2

Case: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 11-10880

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 in[, inter alia,] the petitioner’s trial,[or] appeal . . . .” Id. at 904. 

Braddock has failed to make the required showing.

To the extent Braddock contends the dismissal of his § 2241 petition

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

Restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of

§ 2255 do not violate the Suspension Clause. E.g., Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary

Beaumont, Tex., 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2012