Ruben Lopez-Lopez v. Linda Sanders, No. 06-3089 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Petitioner did not show that Section 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective method for challenging the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence, and the district court did not err in dismissing his Section 2241 petition.
Download PDF
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 [UNPUBLISHED] ________________ Submitted: November 12, 2007 Filed: November 27, 2007 ________________ Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.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 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. ______________________________ 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
