Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-97-01065-RCB
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BEEZER, O'SCANNLAIN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Federal prisoner Jeremy Rosetta appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S .C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Rosetta's petition, see Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.
Rosetta's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition asserted that his sexual abuse conviction violated tribal sovereignty, constituted double jeopardy, and was based on insufficient evidence. He contends on appeal that the district court improperly dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. This contention is meritless.
A district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a section 2241 petition challenging the legality of a conviction or sentence if the petitioner is authorized to raise the challenge by a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the sentencing court, unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162. Rosetta's wish to file a habeas petition while his direct appeal was pending in another circuit does not render ineffective the procedure available under section 2255. See United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 298-300 (9th Cir.1997). The district court properly dismissed Rosetta's petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.