IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41151
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL FISHER,
Petitioner-
Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL PURDY, Warden,
Respondent-
Appellee.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-01-CV-58
---------------------------------------------------------
May 31, 2002
Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Fisher, federal prisoner # 05226-112, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Fisher argues that he is entitled to bring his claim that
the indictment was fundamentally defective under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues
that his claim is a jurisdictional issue which may be raised at any time. Fisher has not shown that he
is entitled to raise his claim under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Fisher has not shown
that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2000). Further, his claim is based on United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). He has
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
not shown that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which
establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense or that the claim was foreclosed
by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore,
the district court did not err in determining that Fisher could not bring this claim under the savings
clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
AFFIRMED.
-2-