Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05290/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05290-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, No. C 07-5290 PJH/

 CR 85-00929 CAL

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JESSIE TAYLOR,

Defendant and Petitioner.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Jesse Taylor (“Taylor”) is currently serving a sentence, imposed by the

Honorable Charles Legge, CR 85-00929 CAL, at a federal correctional institute in Dublin,

California. On October 17, 2007, Taylor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, or alternatively for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The

case was originally assigned to the Honorable Jeremy Fogel in this court’s San Jose

Division, but was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge on December 5, 2007.

Review of the execution of a sentence is properly brought as a petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). In order to

challenge a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the petitioner must: (1) attack the execution

of the sentence; and (2) the institution where he is confined must also lie within the district

court’s jurisdiction. Id. Section 2241 provides as follows:

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless (1) He is in

custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed

to trial before some court thereof . . . or (3) He is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 

Case 4:07-cv-05290-PJH Document 10 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), (3). 

Although Taylor states that his petition raises claims under § 2241, it actually

appears to raise claims under both §§ 2241 and 2255. The Ninth Circuit has held that in

contrast to § 2241, “by its plain terms, § 2255 is available [] to defendants who are in

custody and claiming the right to be released.” United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129,

1130 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 2255 provides in pertinent part:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of

Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence

was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or

that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise

subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence

to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 

Based on his handwritten petition, Taylor’s §§ 2241 and 2255 claims are as follows:

(1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to “block” the

severance of his co-defendant; and (2) that the United States Parole Commission

(“Commission”) violated his due process rights when it extended his parole term without

holding a hearing. Taylor appears to raise a third claim in a type-written petition that

accompanies his handwritten petition. It is unclear to the court whether that claim is related

to or the same as the second claim in his handwritten petition. That claim appears to be

that the Commission violated Taylor’s Fifth Amendment due process rights when it failed to

address and resolve parole violation charges against him in a timely manner.

 Liberally construed, these claims appears colorable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and

2255 and merit an answer from respondent. 

Good cause appearing, Taylor’s application for in forma pauperis status, filed with

this court on October 30, 2007 is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

Case 4:07-cv-05290-PJH Document 10 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on movant, within 30 days of

the date of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, showing cause why the court should not “ vacate,

set aside or correct the sentence” being served by movant. The answer should also

address Taylor’s § 2241 claim.

3. If the Taylor wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a reply

with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05290-PJH Document 10 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 3