David Cruz v. United States, 665 F. App'x 126

In 1997 a jury in D.N.J. convicted David Cruz of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, conspiracy to retaliate against a government witness, killing with intent to retaliate, and firearm use; he received concurrent life terms plus a consecutive 60-month term.
Cruz’s direct appeal and certiorari were unsuccessful; since finality he has repeatedly pursued collateral relief (§ 2255, coram nobis, multiple § 2241 petitions, and attempts to file successive § 2255 motions).
In December 2015 Cruz filed a successive § 2241 petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging trial counsel ineffective assistance, a denied full hearing on his § 2255 claims, and insufficiency of the identification evidence.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Cruz failed to show § 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective remedy; the District Court adopted the Report and dismissed the § 2241 petition.
The District Court advised Cruz to seek authorization under §§ 2244 and 2255(h) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Cruz appealed and the Third Circuit summarily affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cruz may proceed under § 2241 because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective	Cruz contends § 2255 was inadequate to adjudicate his ineffective-assistance and sufficiency claims and he was denied a full hearing	Government (and District Court) argues § 2255 is the proper vehicle and Cruz has not shown any procedural or scope limitation making § 2255 inadequate	The court held § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective here; dismissal of the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether prior collateral efforts overcame gatekeeping to permit § 2241 relief	Cruz argues prior collateral proceedings failed to vindicate his claims so § 2241 is warranted	Respondent notes Cruz had opportunities to raise these claims in his § 2255 and on appeal and cannot use § 2241 to circumvent AEDPA gatekeeping	The court rejected this, explaining § 2255’s safety valve is narrow and inapplicable absent unusual circumstances

Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (establishes § 2255 as the presumptive remedy and defines when § 2255 is inadequate)
Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is inadequate only when a procedural or scope limitation prevents adjudication)
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (example of narrow § 2255 safety-valve application when an intervening change in law renders conduct non-criminal)