Martinez-Perez v. Chandler ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-41258
    Conference Calendar
    DANILO MARTINEZ-PEREZ,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 99-41258
    - - - - - - - - - -
    April 11, 2000
    Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Danilo Martinez-Perez (Perez), federal prisoner # 57742-079,
    appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition.   Perez argues that he may challenge his
    conviction and sentence in a § 2241 petition because his remedy
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     is inadequate because he has not been
    granted leave to pursue a successive § 2255 motion.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 99-41258
    -2-
    A prisoner may seek § 2241 relief if he can establish “that
    the remedy provided for under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective
    to test the legality of his detention.”   Cox v. Warden, Fed.
    Detention Ctr., 
    911 F.2d 1111
    , 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)(internal
    quotation and citation omitted).   A prior unsuccessful § 2255
    motion is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the
    inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the remedy under § 2255.   McGhee
    v. Hanberry, 
    604 F.2d 9
    , 10 (5th Cir. 1979); see also United
    States v. Barrett, 
    178 F.3d 34
    , 50 (1st Cir. 1999)(motion under
    § 2255 cannot become “inadequate or ineffective,” thus permitting
    the use of § 2241, merely because a petitioner cannot meet the
    AEDPA’s “second or successive” requirements), cert. denied, 
    120 S. Ct. 1208
     (2000).   Perez’s § 2241 petition is an attempt to
    circumvent the limitations on filing a successive § 2255 motion.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-41258

Filed Date: 4/11/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014