Rosales v. Pontesso

Full title: Bartolo ROSALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen PONTESSO…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 20, 2000

243 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

243 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2000) Bartolo ROSALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen PONTESSO, Respondent-Appellee. No. 00-15390. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit November 20, 2000

Submitted November 6, 2000. ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-99-01214-RGS

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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FARRIS, REINHARDT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 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 Bartolo Rosales appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 amended habeas petition challenging the legality of his drug possession conviction. We review for abuse of discretion, see Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.

In his reconsideration motion, Rosales argued that the limitations imposed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act on successive petitions are both difficult to meet and unconstitutional. The district court, however, properly concluded that Rosales's arguments were insufficient to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging his conviction or any of the extraordinary circumstances required for granting relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (concluding that a section 2255 movant may not avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to section 2241 rather than section 2255), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 1214 (2000); see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996) (holding that the restrictions on successive habeas corpus petitions do not violate the Suspension Clause).

The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration. See Molloy, 878 F.2d at 316.

AFFIRMED.