Opinion ID: 2681339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: O.P. 10.6. Thomas has filed a response.

Text: In his response, Thomas states he does not object to the disposition of his appeal by way of summary action in light of our controlling precedential decision in Hightower. We acknowledge Thomas’s concession on the merits of his claim, but we need not reach the issue in concluding that summary affirmance is appropriate here. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). A habeas petitioner can seek relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249-51. A section 2255 motion is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because the petitioner cannot meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of § 2255, Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002), or because the sentencing court does not grant relief, Cradle, 290 F.3d at 539. Rather, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, § 2255’s “safety valve” clause is extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusual situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime later deemed to be non-criminal 4 by an intervening change in law. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251). Thomas does not argue--and he has not shown--that such a circumstance exists in his case. Because Thomas’s section 2241 habeas petition failed to satisfy § 2255(e)’s safety valve provision, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that it lacked authority under § 2241 to consider Thomas’s claim. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court, but we modify the judgment to dismiss, rather than deny, Thomas’s habeas petition. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2002). 5