WILLIAM E. HUTCHINGS VON LUDWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE A. RALSTON, NORTH CENTRAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability or ineffectiveness of remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 before filing a habeas corpus petition.
Petitioner, convicted of kidnapping, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition for failure …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William E. Hutchings Von Ludwitz was convicted in the District Court for the District of Oregon of kidnapping and is currently serving a life sentence at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri challenging his conviction on a number of grounds. The district court dismissed for failure to file a motion to set aside sentence with the sentencing court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976). We affirm.
Section 2255 provides that a petition for habeas corpus may not be filed by an inmate convicted of a federal crime unless the inmate can show that the remedies available under § 2255 are unavailable or ineffective. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 223, 72 S.Ct. 263, 274, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952); McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F. 2d 9, 10 (5th Cir.1979). The burden is on the petitioner to show that § 2255 relief would be ineffective. Cagle v. Ciccone, 368 F. 2d 183, 184 (8th Cir.1966).
We agree with the district court that Von Ludwitz has failed to make this showing and affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
. The Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, United States Senior District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeSIMONE v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321 (8th Cir. 1986)
-
Edwards v. United States, 1993 WL 262598 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…e may not file a petition for habeas corpus unless the inmate can show that the remedies available under § 2255 are ineffective or unavailable. The burden to show that such relief would be ineffective is on the petitioner. Von Ludwitz v. Ralston, 716 F.2d 528 (8th Cir.1983). A petitioner cannot claim ineffectiveness until he unsuccessfully has attempted to gain relief by means of a § 2255 motion. DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321 (8th Cir.1986). Because Edwards has not attempted to gain relief thr…
-
Sabah Yohanna Toma v. Turnage, 825 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1987)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1952)
- Eldson McGHEE v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Cagle v. Ciccone, 368 F.2d 183 (8th Cir. 1966)