Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01490/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01490-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUTBERTO HARO RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN

TWENTY DAYS 

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 October 12, 2007. (Doc. 1). The petition

and attached documents indicate that on June 1, 1999, Petitioner was convicted in the United

States District Court for the Central District of California of one count of violating 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), possession with intent to distribute, and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2(a),

aiding and abetting, and was sentenced to a term of 188 months. (Id.). 

Petitioner now brings this habeas petition, purporting to challenge both his conviction and

sentence based on his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of

the Sixth Amendment for failing to challenge the Federal Sentencing Guidelines after United

States Supreme Court decisions suggested that those guidelines were possibly unconstitutional,

for failing to properly advise him, and for failing to file a proper notice of appeal in his case. 

(Id.). 

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 12/04/07 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

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 (3d Cir. 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 (2d Cir. 1991);

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-894 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476,

478-479 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-187 (8th Cir. 1987);

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

Petitioner freely acknowledges in his petition that he is challenging the conviction and

sentence, not the manner in which it is being executed. (Doc. 1, p. 1) The proper vehicle for

challenging a sentence or conviction is a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not in a habeas corpus petition. 

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, 864-865 (9th 

Cir.2000); United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 12/04/07 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

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

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

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

pursuant to § 2255.

3

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); 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

1162-1163 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255

petition inadequate); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956); see United States v.

Valdez-Pacheco, 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 alleges that he is “statutorily barred from filing any postconviction

remedies with the original district court.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Other than this self-serving and

conclusory statement, however, Petitioner provides no further information regarding how or why

he is “statutorily barred” from seeking relief in the form of a § 2255 motion in the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California. Petitioner has provided no basis upon which this

Court could conclude that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective. Petitioner has not alleged that he

has previously raised such motions with the Central District of California or that the Central

District has barred him from further filings. And, in any event, the mere fact that the trial court

has previously denied a motion pursuant to § 2255 does not establish that it is either 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

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 12/04/07 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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

(Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 twenty (20) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations,

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 Findings and

Recommendations.” 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 District Judge 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 Judge. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 12/04/07 Page 4 of 4