Shaw v. United States, 417 F. App'x 311

Shaw was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama of possession of child pornography and sentenced in August 2008 to 37 months.
Shaw is incarcerated at FCI-Butner when he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The district court held Shaw’s claims attacking his conviction should have been brought under §2255 rather than §2241.
The district court declined to construe Shaw’s petition as a §2255 motion due to jurisdiction concerns and Castro v. United States notice requirements, and dismissed the matter as an improper §2241 petition.
The Fourth Circuit held §2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Shaw’s detention, so Shaw must bring his claims under §2255.
The court remanded for transfer under §1631 to the Northern District of Alabama, noting that such transfer would be in the interest of justice to avoid potential §2255 limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2255 is the proper vehicle for Shaw’s challenge to conviction	Shaw argues §2241 is appropriate	§2255 is adequate to test legality of Shaw’s detention	§2255 is adequate; use §2255
Whether the district court should have transferred the petition under §1631 rather than dismiss	N/A	Transfer to proceed under §2255 would be proper	Remand for transfer to the Northern District of Alabama

In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (§2241 petitions when §2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (requires transfer and proper procedures when seeking habeas relief)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (U.S. 2003) (notice and recharacterization requirements for §2255 filings)