Derrick Brown v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 2000 . 2 Pennsylvania entered an

HLD-073 (January 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4493
___________
DERRICK BROWN,
Appellant
vs.
WARDEN B. A. BLEDSOE; HARVEY LAPPIN, F.B.O.P. Director;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DSCC, Designation & Sentence Computation
Center; BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States;
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 09-cv-02258)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 29, 2010
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: February 22, 2010
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Brown, a federal inmate housed in Pennsylvania, appeals from an
order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On
November 10, 2009, the United States District Court for the Middle District of

-- 1 of 3 --

Brown’s appeal from the final order in Civ. No. 09-cv-01436 was1
docketed in this Court as C.A. No. 09-4487.
To the extent that Brown needs a certificate of appealability to pursue this2
appeal, it is denied. Reasonable jurists could not debate the District Court’s decision to
dismiss Brown’s petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2
Pennsylvania entered an order in Civ. No. 09-cv-01436 dismissing a prior § 2241 petition
that Brown had filed to challenge a conviction and sentence imposed in 2008 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court
dismissed that prior petition because Brown had yet to seek collateral review in the
sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he could not show that his remedy under
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.”1
Brown then filed the instant § 2241 petition in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 09-cv-2258). Noting that the petition did not raise any contention
that was not included in the previously dismissed petition, the District Court again
instructed Brown to pursue his remedies in the sentencing court under § 2255, and again
held that he cannot proceed under § 2241. The District Court noted that the instant
petition is also subject to dismissal as successive or an abuse of the writ. Brown timely
filed this appeal from the order of dismissal.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this appeal
presents “no substantial question,” 3d Cir. IOP Ch. 10.6, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Section 2241 is unavailable to Brown to challenge his federal conviction
and sentence unless a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective.” For the
reasons explained in our separate opinion in C.A. No. 09-4487, the District Court
correctly held that Brown cannot proceed with his claims in a § 2241 proceeding.
Further, as the District Court noted, Brown’s repetitive filing of this second § 2241
proceeding was properly subject to dismissal as an abuse of the writ.
The District Court’s judgment will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --