Case Name: Wade KNIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.A. RIOS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-28
Citations: 456 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 11-15065
Parties: Wade KNIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.A. RIOS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
Wade KNIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.A. RIOS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-15065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 28, 2011.
Wade Knight, Atwater, CA, pro se.
Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Stockton, CA, Jesse Gonzalez, Atwater, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Wade Knight appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
"In general, [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of detention." Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000). Knight's contention that he was nonetheless entitled to invoke the "escape hatch" of section 2255 and raise his claim of actual innocence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see id. at 953-54, is unavailing. First, Knight has not shown that "no reasonable juror" would have convicted him in light of his new evidence. See id. at 954. Second, as Knight advised the district court, he previously presented his new evidence to the Third Circuit in an unsuccessful request for leave to file a second or successive motion under section 2255. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (to proceed under section 2241, petitioner "must never have had the opportunity to raise [his claim] by motion" under section 2255); Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.1996) (appellant may not take a position on appeal that "direct[ly] contradict[s]" his position in district court).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.