2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-7-2011

Anibal Soler v. Ricardo Martinez

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1442

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Anibal Soler v. Ricardo Martinez" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 919.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/919
CLD-207 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1442

___________

ANIBAL SOLER,

Appellant

v.

RICARDO MARTINEZ

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 1:10-cv-02554)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III 

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

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

June 9, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 7, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Anibal Soler appeals from the District Court‟s order dismissing his habeas petition 

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the 

District Court‟s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
2

Soler, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood (“USP 

Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania, was convicted in 2000 in the United States 

District Court for the District of Massachusetts of distribution of heroin resulting in 

death, and related drug crimes. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Soler appealed, 

and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Soler‟s convictions as to Counts 1, 3, and 

5, but reversed his convictions as to Counts 2 and 4. See United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d 

146 (1st Cir. 2002). Soler later filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme 

Court that was denied. In 2010, he filed a motion with the First Circuit Court of Appeals 

to recall the mandate. The motion was denied. Based on the record, it appears that Soler 

never filed any post-conviction motions in the Massachusetts District Court. 

In December 2010, Soler filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the district in which he is 

currently confined at USP Allenwood. In his § 2241 petition, Soler alleged that trial 

counsel was ineffective and that Soler was convicted on insufficient evidence. The 

District Court sua sponte dismissed the petition, and Soler filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(a). We exercise plenary review over the District Court‟s legal conclusions and 

review its factual findings for clear error. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 314 

(3d Cir. 2007). 

A federal prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence, as Soler 

does here, generally must pursue collateral relief under § 2255 in the district court that 

imposed his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, case law has established a 
3

narrow exception to the general rule, and allows a prisoner to file a § 2241 petition in the 

district of confinement if “a § 2255 motion would be „inadequate or ineffective[.]‟”

Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “A 

§ 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the petitioner demonstrates that 

some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording 

him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Id. “Section 2255 

is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, 

the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the 

stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Id. at 539. 

We agree with the District Court that Soler has not demonstrated that a § 2255 

motion provides inadequate or ineffective means to raise his claims. Soler‟s argument 

appears to be that because he is a seventy-five year old, non-English speaking Puerto 

Rican who lacks formal education beyond the first grade, he should be excused from not 

timely filing a § 2255 motion in the Massachusetts District Court. Although some delay 

in filing a post-conviction motion is understandable given Soler‟s unfamiliarity with 

English and his lack of education, that alone does not place Soler‟s case in the narrow 

class of exceptions that would allow him to file a § 2241 petition. 

Based on the above, the District Court properly dismissed Soler‟s § 2241 petition. 

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the 

District Court‟s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.