Northrop v. Herrera
This text of 95 F. App'x 252 (Northrop v. Herrera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Aaron Ben Northrop appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition, see Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.
In his petition, Northrop challenged his conviction by guilty plea that he received in the underlying criminal case in the District of Connecticut. The district court properly dismissed Northrop’s § 2241 petition because he has not demonstrated that a motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (rejecting contention that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective merely because prisoner’s § 2255 motion might be procedurally barred); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162 (stating that § 2255 “is not inadequate or ineffective ... merely because the sentencing court denied relief on the merits”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 F. App'x 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrop-v-herrera-ca9-2004.