Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00738/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00738-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANSOUR W. SAIKALY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

D. SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00738 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner

to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court

be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

the order. 

On July 17, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. In his

Case 1:06-cv-00738-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

objections, Petitioner contends that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective. He claims

he has already filed a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing court. However, a court’s denial of

a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5

(1964). The Ninth Circuit has provided little guidance on what constitutes “inadequate and

ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “[o]ther

circuits have held that . . . a federal prisoner who is actually innocent of the crime of conviction, but

who has never had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting a claim of innocence, may resort to

§ 2241 if the possibility of relief under § 2255 is foreclosed.” Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954

(9 Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in Lorentsen specifically th

declined to decide whether to adopt the holdings of any other circuits. Id. Notably, however, the

Ninth Circuit did find that the Petitioner in Lorentsen could not invoke the “escape hatch in § 2255"

because the Petitioner was not “actually innocent” of the underlying conviction. Id. 

Here, it is clear that Petitioner’s arguments do not demonstrate the § 2255 remedy to be

inadequate or ineffective. Although Petitioner uses the term “actual innocence,” Petitioner makes no

claim that he is factually innocent of the underlying conviction; rather, Petitioner claims

constitutional error in the calculation of his sentence. Sentencing error does not constitute actual

innocence as set forth by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998)

(“To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is

more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.”). In addition, it is apparent

that Petitioner has had several unobstructed procedural opportunities to present the instant claims to

the sentencing court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Even if the petition was allowed to pass through the savings clause, it would be without merit

because Apprendi and its progeny have not been held to be retroactive to cases on collateral review.

Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 581 (2002) (“No Court of Appeals, let alone this Court, has

held that Apprendi has retroactive effect.”); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9

th

Cir.2002) (the ruling in Apprendi does not apply retroactively to initial petitions for collateral

review); Cook v. United States, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir.2004) (Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004) is not retroactive); Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 860 (6th Cir.2005)

Case 1:06-cv-00738-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

(United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) is not retroactive); McReynolds v.

United States, 397 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir.2005) (same); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 845

(10th Cir.2005) (same); Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam)

(same); Guzman v. United States, 404 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.2005) (same); United States v. Sahlin, 399

F.3d 27 (1st Cir.2005) (Booker provides no basis to vacate the entry of a pre-Booker guilty plea).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 26, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00738-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3