Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03520/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Lopez-Lopez
Appellant
Lisa Sanders
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3520

___________

Ruben Lopez-Lopez, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Lisa Sanders, Warden, FCI - *

Forrest City, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2009

Filed: January 11, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge. 

Ruben Lopez-Lopez, a federal inmate in Arkansas, appeals the dismissal of his

petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Convicted of drug offenses,

Lopez-Lopez was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment by the United States

District Court in Puerto Rico. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.

See United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). He later sought relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, alleging ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. After that court and the First Circuit denied a certificate of appealability,

Lopez-Lopez petitioned the district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for relief

under § 2241. The district court dismissed the petition, and this court affirmed,

Appellate Case: 08-3520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622814
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-

concluding he failed to show that § 2255 relief was either inadequate or ineffective.

See Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders, 256 Fed. Appx. 15, 16 (8th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128

S. Ct. 2945 (2008). Lopez-Lopez filed a new complaint, again asserting his claims

under § 2241. Lopez-Lopez now argues that the savings clause of § 2255 allows him

to seek relief under § 2241 and that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective. The

district court1

 dismissed his petition. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this

court affirms. 

A federal inmate generally must challenge a conviction or sentence through a

§ 2255 motion. Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). The savings

clause of § 2255 permits a petition under § 2241 if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of a conviction or a sentence. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255(e). The inmate bears the burden of showing that the remedy is inadequate or

ineffective. Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959. This court reviews de novo the dismissal of

a § 2241 petition. Id. 

Lopez-Lopez first alleges that the sentencing court misunderstood or failed to

adequately address his § 2255 claim. This recasts the argument previously rejected

by this court. See Lopez-Lopez, 256 Fed. Appx. at 16. As this court explained, “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.” Id. Here, Lopez-Lopez merely cites a procedural barrier to relief, the

failure by the sentencing court to address his claim on the merits. This, however, does

not allow a petition under § 2241. See United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077

(8th Cir. 2000) (reasoning that a procedural bar to § 2255 relief does not alone render

the remedy inadequate or ineffective). 

Appellate Case: 08-3520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622814
-3-

Lopez-Lopez next argues that the inadequate performance of his habeas counsel

entitles him to pursue relief under § 2241. His argument is without merit. There is

no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in habeas proceedings. See

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 964. The

district court correctly ruled that Lopez-Lopez’s allegation of ineffective postconviction counsel is insufficient to establish § 2255 relief as inadequate or

ineffective. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3520 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622814