### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10155 Summary Calendar

LUIS MADRID , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. JASON JONES, Warden BSCC Cedar Hill Unit , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CV

- 3

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty in 2009, Luis Madrid, pro se and in forma pauperis , appeals the dismissal , for lack of jurisdiction , of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition , which challenges his conviction s and s entence s (2010) for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 371. Madrid did not appeal. His 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied, and he filed an unsuccessful motion for

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 29, 2014
L yle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2014No. 14

- 10155
authorization to file a second § 2255 motion. His § 2241 petition was filed in
2014. Madrid asserts, in the light of United States v. Santos , 553 U.S. 507 (2 008), that he was convicted of nonexistent offenses. Citing Garland v. Roy , 615 F.3d 391 , 397

– 404 (5th Cir. 2010) , and Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893 , 904 (5th Cir. 2001) , h e contends he is entitled to assert his claims via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)

. Along that line, and a s a general rule, a federal prisoner seek ing to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motio n

. Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 425

– 26 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to tes t the legality of his detention ”

. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255(e). When a prisoner appeals the dismissal of a § 2241 petition, we review the “district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its r ulings on issues of law de novo ”

. Padilla , 416 F.3d at 425. Madrid’s § 2255 remedy wa s not inadequate for pu rposes of the savings clause simply because he file d an unsuccessful § 2255 motion and was unable
to meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion

. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

. To show his § 2255 remedy was inadequate , Madrid was required to raise a claim of actual innocence : “ (i) that [wa] s based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishe s that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial , appeal or first § 2255 motion ”

. Reyes

Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. Madrid’s Santos

- based claims d o not meet that

2 Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2014No. 14

- 10155

standard. For example, Santos was decided in 2008, prior to Madrid’s pleading guilty in 2009. Madrid also asserts , but fails to establish , that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for discovery to support jurisdiction

. See Hernandez v. Garrison , 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) ; see also Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist. , 233 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2000) (“ We review a district
court ’ s discovery decisions for abuse of discretion and will affirm such decisions unless they are arbitrary or clearly unreasona ble

. ” ). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2014