¶1*254Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant, Pro Se.
¶2Kate L. Mershimer, Esquire, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.
¶3Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
¶4OPINION OF THE COURT
¶6Samuel Robert Queen, Jr. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, dismissing his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm the District Court’s order.
¶7Queen’s habeas petition presented due process challenges and also challenged the finding that he was guilty of an institutional infraction for Possession, Manufacture, or Introduction of a Weapon, Code 104. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.13 (listing prohibited acts). The Respondent below noted that Queen had already raised the same claims, challenging the same incident unsuccessfully, in a § 2241 habeas petition filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.1 The Respondent asked the Court to dismiss Queen’s petition on the basis of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
¶8The District Court, without addressing the availability of relief under § 2241, see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997), dismissed Queen’s § 2241 petition as successive.2 We have noted, in the context of a § 2241 petition brought by an immigration detainee, that § 2241 petitions are not subject to the gatekeeping mechanism of § 2244(b); i.e., a petitioner need not *255seek permission from a court of appeals before filing a second or successive § 2241 petition. See Zayas v. INS, 311 F.3d 247, 255 (3d Cir.2002). We have further recognized that the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine applies to section 2241 petitions; thus, a petitioner may not raise new claims that could have been resolved in a previous action. Id. at 257; McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 483-86, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).
¶9As we noted in Zayas, the provisions of § 2244(b) refer specifically to claims presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and therefore do not apply to a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. However, § 2244(a), as set forth in the margin,3 does not reference § 2254, and thus by its terms applies to any application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person who is in detention pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States.4See Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir.1998) (noting that “ § 2244(a) bars successive petitions under § 2241 directed to the same issue concerning execution of a sentence”); Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir.1997) (dismissing pursuant to § 2244(a) jail-credit claim brought in earlier § 2241 petition).
¶10The District Court here properly found that the issues raised in Queen’s § 2241 petition either had been, or could have been, decided in his previous habeas action. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s judgment dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).