[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11250

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-21199-KMW

RYAN LEE ZATER, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

WARDEN, FCI MIAMI LOW, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 17, 2018)

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-11250 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Ryan Zater, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 application for habeas corpus relief. The district court concluded 

that because Zater failed to satisfy § 2255(e)’s saving-clause requirements, he was 

not entitled to relief under § 2241, and dismissed his application for lack of 

jurisdiction. On appeal, Zater makes two arguments. First, he asserts that his 18 

U.S.C. § 924 convictions are invalid, and that he should be able to seek habeas 

relief under § 2255(e)’s saving clause on the ground that he is “actually innocent”

and § 2255 was inadequate and ineffective to challenge his conviction because his 

earlier efforts to do so were barred by precedent and the bar on second or 

successive § 2255 motions.1

 Second, and separately, Zater contends that the 

district court erred in not exercising its discretion to transfer his § 2241 application 

to the District of South Carolina―the district of his conviction―for resolution. 

After careful review, we affirm. 

In a federal habeas proceeding under § 2241, the applicability of § 2255(e)’s 

saving clause is “a threshold jurisdictional issue,” and the saving clause “imposes a 

subject-matter jurisdictional limit” on § 2241 applications. Samak v. Warden, FCC 

Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271, 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). We review 

the applicability of § 2255(e)’s saving clause de novo. McCarthan v. Dir. of 

 1 A federal prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or 

correct his sentence is required to move the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district 

court to consider such a motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), cross-referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Case: 18-11250 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (2017), cert. denied sub 

nom., 138 S. Ct. 502, 199 (2017). Although district courts shall liberally construe 

pro se filings, pro se litigants must still comply with the court’s procedural rules, 

Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

Ordinarily, a federal prisoner may attack the validity of his conviction or 

sentence by filing a motion to vacate under § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 

1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). Under § 2255(e)’s saving clause, a prisoner may seek 

relief through a § 2241 habeas application only if “the remedy by [§ 2255] motion 

is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” which is the 

petitioner’s burden to establish. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 

1081. In McCarthan, we concluded that the saving clause permits a federal 

prisoner to proceed under § 2241 only when: (1) he is “challeng[ing] the execution 

of his sentence, such as the deprivation of good-time credits or parole 

determinations”; (2) “the sentencing court [was] unavailable,” such as when the 

sentencing court itself has been dissolved; or (3) “practical considerations (such as 

multiple sentencing courts) might prevent a petitioner from filing a motion to 

vacate.” 851 F.3d at 1092–93. 

The saving clause, however, does not allow access to § 2241 simply because

a claim is barred by the rule against second or successive § 2255 motions. Id. at 

1092. Consequently, a petitioner who has filed a previous § 2255 motion that has 

Case: 18-11250 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

been denied may not circumvent the restriction on successive § 2255 motions by 

filing an application under § 2241. Id. at 1091–92.

Even liberally construing Zater’s claims, as we must, his argument that he is 

“actually innocent” of his § 924 convictions―the same argument that he attempted 

to make in his successive § 2255 motions―attacks the substance of his convictions 

and accompanying sentences, and thus falls outside the scope of § 2255(e)’s saving

clause as interpreted in McCarthan. Accordingly, we conclude that the district 

court properly dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction. 

Additionally, unlike § 2255 motions, § 2241 applications must be brought in 

the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated. Fernandez v. 

United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991). Any other district court lacks 

jurisdiction over a § 2241 application. Id. Here, Zater brought his application in 

the Southern District of Florida―the district in which he is incarcerated. 

Therefore, the district court did not err by declining to transfer Zater’s application 

to the District of South Carolina―the district of his conviction. 

For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed Zater’s § 2241 

habeas application for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11250 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 4 of 4