Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edgar SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Andre MATEVOUSIAN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-15215
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Edgar Sanchez, Pro Se
    Rosanne Rust, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Edgar Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that he is actually innocent of three counts relating to participation in a drug conspiracy, and that this claim can only be raised in a section 2241 petition. As explained by the district court, however, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is not limited to sentencing challenges, and in general “is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (remedy provided in § 2255 does not differ in scope from the traditional habeas remedy under § 2241).

The district court properly concluded that Sanchez cannot bring a section 2241 petition under section 2255(e)’s escape hatch. Contrary to his contention, Sanchez cannot establish that he has not had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his claim, because he could have filed a timely section 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) (setting forth triggering dates for the statute of limitations). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Sanchez’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Harrison, 519 F.3d at 961-62.

Finally, having reviewed Sanchez’s claim of actual innocence, we conclude that transferring his petition to the sentencing court is not in the interest of justice, and deny his request to transfer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990).

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.