Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01564/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01564-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH RICHARDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01564-JDP

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

AMENDED PETITION FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

ECF No. 26, 28

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR COUNSEL

ECF No. 27

Petitioner Kenneth Richardson, a federal prisoner without counsel, filed a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 22, 2017. ECF No. 1. On March 29, 2019, the 

court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition and gave petitioner 30 days to file an 

amended petition. ECF No. 25. We dismissed the petition because it could not be properly filed 

under either habeas petition avenues available to federal prisoners: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. We found that the petition was improperly filed under § 2241 because it challenged the 

legality of petitioner’s sentence, not the manner of execution of his sentence. ECF No. 25 at 6. 

The petition did not qualify for the savings clause of § 2241, which allows a petitioner to file 

under § 2241 upon showing that a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be inadequate or 

ineffective. Id. Finally, petitioner could not file under § 2255 because his multiple previous

Case 1:17-cv-01564-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/14/20 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

2

§ 2255 petitions in another district were denied, making the instant petition second or successive. 

Id. at 9. 

Amended Petition 

In response, petitioner submitted two identical documents captioned as motions to amend 

on April 4 and 12, 2019. ECF No. 26, 28. Because these motions include new arguments, we

will construe them together as an amended petition. In the amended petition, petitioner repeated 

the two arguments from his original petition: (1) the sentencing judge failed to fully comply with 

21 U.S.C. § 851, which requires a sentencing judge to inform a defendant of his rights and (2) the 

use of petitioner’s prior convictions in determining his sentence was improper. ECF No. 26 at 4-

6. Both claims were dismissed, ECF No. 25, and will not be considered again. 

Next, petitioner argued that his sentence should be reduced under the First Step Act of 

2018. ECF No. 26 at 2-4. This claim will not be considered here. To the extent petitioner wishes 

to seek resentencing under the First Step Act, he should petition the court that imposed his 

sentence. Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 provides: “A court that imposed a sentence 

for a covered offense may, on motion of the defendant . . . impose a reduced sentence as if 

sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–220; 124 Stat. 2372) were 

in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.”

Finally, petitioner argues that, under United States v. Wheeler, a “fundamental sentencing 

error” should allow him to file his petition under the savings clause of § 2241. See United States 

v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018) (court allowed filing under the savings clause of § 2241 

because a new retroactive law resulted in a fundamental defect in petitioner’s sentence).

Seemingly, petitioner is asserting that the First Step Act of 2018 is the new retroactive law 

causing a fundamental sentencing error. Petitioner’s argument fails for two reasons: First, the 

Ninth Circuit has not adopted the rule from Wheeler. In the Ninth Circuit, to be eligible to file a 

habeas petition under the savings clause of § 2241, a petitioner must “(1) make a claim of actual 

innocence, and (2) not [have] had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim.” 

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 

895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006)). In determining whether a petitioner has had an unobstructed 

Case 1:17-cv-01564-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/14/20 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

3

procedural shot, we consider “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did not arise until 

after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion;’ and (2) whether the law 

changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 

F.3d at 960. We determined that petitioner did not meet the Harrison requirements, as explained 

in the order dismissing the petition. ECF No. 25. Second, while petitioner is correct in arguing 

that the First Step Act is a newly passed law with some retroactive provisions, petitioner cannot 

seek habeas relief from this court through making a First Step Act claim. Instead, petitioner must 

submit a First Step Act petition to the sentencing court in his case. 

Petitioner has presented no other arguments in his amended complaint. His two new 

arguments both fail for failure to state a claim. Therefore, we dismiss the amended petition for 

failure to state a claim.

Appointment of Counsel

Second, petitioner moved this court for the appointment of counsel, stating that he lacks 

legal education and consistent access to the prison law library. ECF No. 27. Here, petitioner’s 

amended complaint is dismissed. Therefore, his motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot. 

Order

1. The amended petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 26, 28

2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot. ECF No. 27.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:17-cv-01564-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3