UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander Thomas PIRRO, Defendant-Appellant (Two Cases)

Good Law
104 F.3d 297·1997 WL 6085
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 9, 199796-50072, 96-55191California1,769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

OVERVIEW

Alexander Thomas Pirro appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . The petition was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Pirro filed the petition after his conviction but prior to his sentencing, the filing and processing of his direct appeal, or the filing of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the normal procedure for seeking relief for ineffective assistance of counsel is through a section 2255 motion. A section 2241 habeas petition is authorized only if the remedy available under section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [a defendant’s] detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . The question on appeal is whether the delay resulting from the fact that the sentencing court will not review a section 2255 motion until the direct appeal is resolved renders such a motion inadequate or ineffective. We hold that it does not, and we therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Pirro’s section 2241 habeas petition.

Pirro also appeals his conviction, alleging that the trial court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.