Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant's section 2241 petition, alleging that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective when he filed defendant’s initial section 2255 habeas petition that challenged defendant's capital murder conviction, where post-conviction counsel had failed to raise three additional claims that defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective. Defendant was not eligible for section 2241 relief, where he had unsuccessfully raised 17 other alleged instances of trial counsel being ineffective in initial section 2255 petition, and Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that he could show that initial section 2255 petition was “inadequate” or “ineffective” for purposes of obtaining section 2241 relief. Ct. further noted that there was no formal provision that prevented defendant from raising instant three instances of ineffective assistance of counsel claim in initial section 2255 petition. As such, Ct. found that: (1) once 6th Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim has been raised and rejected in section 2255 petition, that is “end of the line” for defendant; and (2) had defendant raised instant three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in successive section 2255 petition, Dist. Ct. would have been required to dismiss said petition, even if specific details of trial counsel’s performance were different in second petition.
