MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YVETTE KANE, District Judge

Alan Grecco ("Grecco"), an inmate housed at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of a 1991 conviction entered in the United States Court for the District of New Jersey. (Doc. 1). Grecco also filed a memorandum of law and an appendix in support of the memorandum. (Docs. 2 and 3). The petition has been given preliminary consideration as it is the duty of the Court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970). For the reasons outlined below, it is appropriate to dismiss the petition at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

I. Background.

In 1991, following a jury trial, Grecco and his co-defendant, Gatto, were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of "two counts of conspiracy to violate the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and (c) and 2, based upon three counts of conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1955 and 2, and two counts of use of telephone to facilitate illegal gambling business and travel in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2." (Doc. 2, p. 2). On November 11, 1991, he was sentenced to a term of sixty-five years of imprisonment. ( Id.). Grecco pursued a direct appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. United States v. Gatto, 995 F.2d 449 (3d Cir. 1993). His petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was also denied. Grecco v. United States, 510 U.S. 948 (1993).

On April 21, 1997, he filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On April 17, 2000, the district court denied his relief. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, Grecco v. United States, 29 Fed.Appx. 817 (3d Cir. 2002). His petition for writ of certiorari was denied. Grecco v. United States, 537 U.S. 880 (2002).

Grecco files the instant petition seeking relief on the following three grounds: (1) United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), is fully retroactive on collateral review, (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of his sentence, and (3) based on Booker, he is actually innocent.

II. Discussion.

It is well-established that "[m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution." Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002), citing Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974); see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997). Claims may not be raised in a § 2241 petition except in "unusual situation[s]" where the remedy by motion under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective." 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251-52. Importantly, § 2255 is not "inadequate or ineffective" merely because the sentencing court has previously denied relief or because the gate keeping provisions of § 2255 make it difficult to prosecute successive motions. See id. at 251. Nor do the legislative limitations, such as the statute of limitations or gate keeping provisions, placed on § 2255 proceedings render the remedy inadequate or ineffective so as to authorize pursuit of a habeas corpus petition in this court. United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3^rd Cir. 2000); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251; Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2^nd Cir. 1997). Both the Triestman and Dorsainvil courts held that a § 2255 motion was only "inadequate and ineffective" and allowed a petitioner to bring a § 2241 habeas corpus action, where the denial of a habeas action would raise serious constitutional issues. Triestman, 124 F.3d at 377; Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 249. The serious constitutional issue was that a change in substantive law rendered the conduct for which petitioner was convicted no longer criminal. Triestman, 124 F.3d at 366; Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. Thus, these cases set a high bar for what a court will consider a serious constitutional issue sufficient to allow a petitioner to bring a § 2241 petition to challenge a conviction or sentence.

Grecco fails to recognize that prior unsuccessful § 2255 motions filed in the sentencing court have been held to be insufficient in and of themselves to show that the remedy is inadequate and ineffective. "It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not a personal inability to utilize it, that is determinative. . . ." Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that, as to issues cognizable by the sentencing court under § 2255, a § 2255 "supersedes habeas corpus and provided the exclusive remedy." Strollo v. Alldredge, 462 F.2d 1194, 1195 (3d Cir. 1972) (per cuiram). There is no indication that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to address the issues raised by Grecco. In fact, Grecco states that he has not presented any of the grounds raised in this petition via a motion under Section 2255. Therefore, a § 2241 petition in the district of confinement would not be the appropriate procedural mechanism for raising the issues Grecco seeks to raise here. Because Grecco has unsuccessfully filed a § 2255 motion with the sentencing court, he must obtain leave of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The petition will be dismissed.

III. Order.

AND NOW, this 13^th day of May 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED;

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and NOTIFY THE PETITIONER.