Richard v. Andrews

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.

1 . All pending motions are denied as moot.