Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00086-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIEGO SALCIDO RUIZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

NEIL ADLER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:08-CV-0086-OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE 

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the

petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court.” The court finds this to be such a petition. 

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his

conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9 Cir.1988); th

Case 1:08-cv-00086-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8 Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 th

(3 1997); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir.1981). In such cases, only rd th

the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not

collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9

th

Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th

Cir.1980). 

In contrast, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d th

175, 177 (5 Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2 Cir. 1991); th nd

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6 Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d th

476, 478-79 (3 Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8 Cir. rd th

1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9 Cir. 1990). th

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241

if he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of his detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5 (9 Cir.2000); United th

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9 Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has th

recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.

2003) (a petitioner must show actual innocence and that he never had the opportunity to raise

it by motion to demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185

F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on th

§ 2255 Motions does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct.

3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255

inadequate.); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9 Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d th

at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 th

Case 1:08-cv-00086-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 4
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

petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. th

Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9 th th

Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by invoking the All

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is

inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9 Cir. 1963). th

The court finds that in the present case, Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality

of his conviction. Further, he has not demonstrated that relief under Section 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention. Accordingly, the court finds

initially that Petitioner cannot pursue his challenge to the validity of his conviction through a

petition under Section 2241. However, the court further finds that Petitioner’s petition is

without merit. Specifically, Petitioner claims that although he is an American citizen, the

United States District Court lacks jurisdiction over his person. Petitioner bases this claim on

the contention that Congress lacks authority to create district courts outside of the District of

Columbia. The court finds this contention to be utterly without merit. See United States

Constitution, Article III. Accordingly, the court will recommend dismissal of this petition

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) That the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2) The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

Case 1:08-cv-00086-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 4
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 4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00086-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/11/08 Page 4 of 4