Richard v. Andrews

Ninth Circuit

Richard v. Andrews

56 F. App'x 374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 02-15024; D.C. No. CV-00-07154-AWI

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F. App'x 374 (Richard v. Andrews) 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.

Bluebook

Richard v. Andrews, 56 F. App'x 374 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Billy Frank Richard appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his jury trial conviction and sentence for cocaine conspiracy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160,1162 (9th Cir.1988), we affirm.

Richard may not challenge his conviction or sentence pursuant to a § 2241 petition because he has failed to demonstrate that any remedy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); see Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizing that “ § 2241 is not available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of § 2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the ga-tekeeping provisions of § 2255”). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Richard’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.¹

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Billy Frank Richard appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his jury trial conviction and sentence for cocaine conspiracy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160,1162 (9th Cir.1988), we affirm.

Richard may not challenge his conviction or sentence pursuant to a § 2241 petition because he has failed to demonstrate that any remedy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); see Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizing that “ § 2241 is not available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of § 2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the ga-tekeeping provisions of § 2255”). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Richard’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.¹

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-andrews-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack