DLD
- 257 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 2796

___________ TEDDY ATKINSON,

Appellant

v. DONNA ZICKEFOOSE

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 11

- cv - 2600) District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

Augus t 4, 2011 Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

.

( Filed: September 7, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Atkinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.2

Atkinson was convicted of various drug

- related offenses in the Northern District of New York and is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Inst itution at Fort Dix, New Jersey

. After his direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he filed a motion before the trial court to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied as time barred in 2005

. Atkinson v. United States , No. 05

- cv - 286, 2005 WL 3555946 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). Atkinson initiated this case by filing a § 2241 petition in the District of New Jersey in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial and ap pellate counsel

. He additionally argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one

- year statute of limitations and that the Northern District of New York had erred in dismissing his original § 2255 motion as untimely . The District Court held that a § 22 55 motion was not an inadequate or ineffective means to raise Atkinson’s claims, and § 2241 relief was therefore unavailable. The District Court dismissed the pe tition for lack of jurisdiction, and Atkinson appealed. 1
The District Court corre ctly dismissed Atkinson ’s petition. “Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution.”
Okereke v. United States , 30 7 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). A federal prisoner can seek

1 We have jurisdiction pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Our review of the District Court's legal conclusions is plenary. See Rios v. Wiley , 201 F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir. 2000).3

relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner , 290 F.3d 53 6, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). T he “inadequate or ineffective” exception is narrow , and does not apply simply because a petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255

. Okereke , 307 F.3d at 120 (quoting In re Dorsainvil , 119 F.3d 245 , 251 (3d Cir. 1997) ). Although Atkinson contends that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to raise his claims, he offers no explanation or argument in support. Atkinson raised the same claims in his original, unsuccessful § 2555 motion, and the instant § 2241 petition was no more than an attempt to relitigate that action. Atkinson was therefore not entitled to raise his claims under § 2241. 2 Accordingly, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Atkinson’s claims and correctly dismissed the action.
Because Atkinson’s appeal presents no substantial question , we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. His motion for the appointment of counsel is denied

.

2 Any § 2255 motion attacking Atkinson’s conviction or sentence should be brought in th e Northern Distri ct of New York

– his court of conviction

– and not in the District of New Jersey. See Application of Galante , 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971)

. Of course, because Atkinson has already brought a § 2255 action, he cannot now file another without leave fr om the Second Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h). We concur with the District Court that construing Atkinson ’ s petition as one for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferring it to that Court would not be in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.