Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03089/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3089

________________

Ruben Lopez-Lopez, Reg. No.

17861-069,

Appellant,

v.

Linda Sanders, Warden, Federal

Correctional Institution, Forrest

City,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: November 12, 2007

Filed: November 27, 2007

________________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Ruben Lopez-Lopez appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. Lopez-Lopez was convicted of drug offenses and sentenced

to 235 months' imprisonment by the United States District Court for the District of

Puerto Rico on July 10, 2000. The First Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence

in 2002. See United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 536

Appellate Case: 06-3089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375960
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

U.S. 949 (2002). Lopez-Lopez timely filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

which the sentencing court summarily dismissed on April 29, 2004. The sentencing

court and the First Circuit both denied a certificate of appealability. Lopez-Lopez,

serving his sentence in Arkansas, now attempts to challenge the constitutionality of

his conviction and sentence through § 2241.

A petitioner must generally challenge his conviction and sentence in the

sentencing court through § 2255, and § 2241 is not available for such purposes unless

the petitioner can demonstrate that a motion pursuant to § 2255 "is inadequate or

ineffective." 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir.

2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1147 (2005); United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075,

1077 (8th Cir. 2000). Lopez-Lopez has not demonstrated that § 2255 was inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction. He asserts that the sentencing court

did not understand or fully address his argument, but the fact that a claim was

previously raised in a § 2255 motion and rejected by the sentencing court does not

provide the necessary showing that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. Abdullah,

392 F.3d at 959; Lurie, 207 F.3d at 1077. We reject out of hand his suggestion that

he is free to ignore the procedural limitations of § 2255 absent any valid

demonstration that those procedures were "ineffective or inadequate" within the

meaning of the statute. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's1

 dismissal of this § 2241 petition for

a writ of habeas corpus.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 06-3089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375960