Elpidio Corsino Rodriguez, Petitioner-appellant, v. J.l. Sivley, Respondent-appellee, 981 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Elpidio Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2253. We review the denial of a petition for habeas corpus de novo, Watts v. Bonneville, 879 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 1989), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez's section 2241 petition. Although this petition is presented as a petition for habeas corpus, it directly challenges Rodriguez's conviction. A challenge to a federal conviction is most appropriately brought as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982 (1988). Only a sentencing court has jurisdiction over a section 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Moreover, Rodriguez has not given any reasons to show that a section 2255 motion would be an inadequate or ineffective method of challenging his conviction. See Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963) (the burden is on the petitioner to show that the section 2255 remedy is ineffective or inadequate to test the legality of the his detention). Therefore, Rodriguez should direct his challenges to the sentencing court in a section 2255 motion. See id.

AFFIRMED.