Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00133/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00133-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS MOREJON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00133-OWW-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. 1) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on February 1, 2005. (Doc. 1). The petition

and attached documents indicate that in July 1996, Petitioner was convicted in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida of one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine

with intent to distribute, and he was sentenced to a term of 292 months. (Id.). In June 2003,

Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was

denied. (Id.).

Petitioner now brings this habeas petition, purporting to challenge the execution of his

sentence insofar as the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is “knowingly and intentionally maintaining

false and inaccurate information in Petitioner’s central file records.” (Id.). Specifically,

Petitioner maintains that documents from his trial--the pre-sentence investigation report,

Case 1:05-cv-00133-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 5
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

judgment, and commitment order--contain “adverse” and false “determinations” regarding his

prior convictions. (Id.). Petitioner advised the BOP about the inaccuracies in these records but

the BOP has “failed to seek the correction of the erroneous report and judgment and commitment

order,” which would have made Petitioner eligible to be classified as a “low custody and [low]

security level inmate” and thus eligible for more favorable “job and quarter assignment, parole,

and the opportunity to earn money, good time credit and release.” (Id.). Petitioner seeks removal

of the “unconstitutional prior convictions” from his records, re-computation of his sentence, and

civil penalties and monetary damages in the amount of $10,000. (Id.). 

Because the Court has determined that Petitioner’s claim challenges his original sentence,

and therefore should have been brought in the trial court as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, the Court will recommend that the instant petition be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

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 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v.

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only 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 (9th 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 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175,

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

States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79

(3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00133-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner’s allegation that the pre-sentence investigation report, the judgment, and

commitment order contain erroneous information about certain prior convictions which has

adversely affected the execution of his sentence, is a thinly-disguised attempt to circumvent the

prohibition against using a habeas corpus petition to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence. 

Unquestionably, an error in a pre-sentence report can affect the computation of a sentence by the

sentencing court. It is likewise without question that the direct and indirect consequences of such

a miscalculated sentence, if left uncorrected, may follow a prisoner throughout his incarceration. 

However, the proper vehicle for challenging such an error is a motion to vacate, set aside,

or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not a habeas corpus petition. Although

Petitioner strains to fit his case within the parameters of § 2241 by recounting the many ways in

which these “erroneous” sentencing errors continue to affect him while incarcerated, it is

apparent that his real challenge is to his underlying sentence itself, not to the way in which that

sentence is presently being carried out by the BOP. 

If Petitioner’s reasoning were correct, then every sentencing challenge under § 2255

could, in the alternative, properly be brought as a habeas petition because such collateral

consequences as a prisoner’s security classification, work availability in prison, the possibilities

for parole, etc., are always contingent upon the nature of the conviction and the length of the

underlying sentence. Because Petitioner is in reality challenging his sentence, not its execution,

he is precluded from bringing such a collateral attack in a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. 

Grady, 929 F.2d at 470; Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; 

Nevertheless, 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 (9th Cir.2000);

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

recognized that this 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); Holland v. Pontesso, 234 F.3d

1277 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 2255 not inadequate or ineffective because Petitioner misses statute of

Case 1:05-cv-00133-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 3 of 5
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

1A petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where petitioner was

originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges a sentence adjudicated in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Florida. Thus, that court is the proper venue for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to § 2255.

4

limitations); 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 (9th Cir. 2000)

(same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal

treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th

Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956); see United States v. ValdezPacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th 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

(9th Cir. 1963). 

In this case, Petitioner states that he seeks relief pursuant to § 2241 because he is

“challenging the execution of his sentence, not the imposition of his sentence. Thus § 2255 is

inadequate and ineffective.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). The Court, however, has already concluded that

Petitioner is effectively challenging his sentence, not its execution. Moreover, other than his

conclusory assertion, Petitioner has provided no facts or circumstances establishing that § 2255,

in this context, is either inadequate or ineffective. Although Petitioner indicates that he

unsuccessfully brought a motion pursuant to § 2255 in 2003, the denial of a prior § 2255 motion,

as mentioned above, does not render it inadequate or ineffective. Aronson, 85 S.Ct. at 5;

Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953. Hence, should Petitioner wish to pursue this claim in federal court,

he must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

Case 1:05-cv-00133-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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 of this Report and Recommendation, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00133-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 08/19/05 Page 5 of 5