Barajas-Arredondo

MEMORANDUM **

Cain Barajas-Arredondo appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction for use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Barajas-Arredondo contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2241 petition on the grounds that he previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising the same claim, because § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of his detention. We review the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000).

Barajas-Arredondo’s contention that § 2255 is an inadequate remedy because it bars him from raising a successive motion fails. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that the ban on unauthorized second or successive motions does not per se make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective).

Because a habeas petitioner cannot circumvent the bar against successive § 2255 motions by bringing a § 2241 petition styled as a § 2255 motion attacking the legality of his firearm conviction, the district court properly…