Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0819-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eric Lamar FALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis SMITH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55828.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
    Eric Lamar Falls, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    1300 U.S. Courthouse, Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Eric Lamar Falls appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition challenging the legality of his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Falls contends that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means for raising his claim, entitling him to pursue his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court correctly determined that Falls failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (stating general rule that the unavailability of a second or successive petition does not itself make section 2255 inadequate or ineffective). Further, Falls has failed to demonstrate “actual innocence.” See id. at 954.

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Falls’ petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (rejecting the use of § 2241 as substitute for a dismissed § 2255 motion).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.