Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00638-2/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

)

JEROME E. MARSHALL, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05-0638 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 6]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner opposes the motion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 19, 1991, a jury in the Southern District of Indiana convicted Petitioner of

conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute; being a felon in possession of a firearm;

making a false statement to acquire firearms; and conspiring to launder money obtained by illegal

means. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(a)(6), 922(g)(1), 1956(a)(1)(B)(I), 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. 

On September 30, 1991, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on count 1; 15 years on

count 2; and 60 months each on counts 4 and 5, with all terms to run concurrently. Petitioner

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 02/07/07 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

filed a direct appeal from his sentence and on February 3, 1993, the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit (“Seventh Circuit”) affirmed his conviction. United States v. Marshall, 985 F.2d

901 (7 Cir. 1993). th

On April 24, 1997, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court

denied the Section 2255 on September 30, 1998. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit

denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.

Petitioner filed the present Section 2255 motion on May 13, 2005. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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); Thompson v. th

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

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing th

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 Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at

th

1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5 Cir.1980). th

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 175, th

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

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

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 02/07/07 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

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 § 2255 Motions th

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 at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a th th

petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams

v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see, th th

United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of th

§ 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

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Section

2241 on the ground that Petitioner, who has already filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

his sentence pursuant to Section 2255, has not established a basis for filing under Section 2241.

Petitioner presents two contentions in his petition. First, Petitioner contends that his

sentencing was invalid because the United States Attorney failed to provide him with a statement

in writing of the previous convictions that were relied upon to increase his sentence, as is

required under 21 U.S.C. Section 851(a)(1). Second, Petitioner contends that the district court

failed to take a categorical approach to evaluating his prior convictions as required by Taylor v.

United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). Petitioner claims that he is entitled to pursue relief under

Section 2241, in light of the “fact” that he is serving a sentence in violation of his right to

effective assistance of counsel and his right to due process of law. He claims that because relief

under Section 2255 is unavailable to provide review of the illegality of his sentence, Section

2255 is rendered inadequate and ineffective as applied to him.

In response to this explanation by Petitioner, Respondent argues that Petitioner has not

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 02/07/07 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

4

met the Section 2255 savings clause for two reasons. First, Respondent argues that Petitioner 

does not claim that he is innocent of the charges against him. Second, Respondent argues that

Petitioner could have raised his claims in his direct appeal and in his Section 2255 motion. 

In opposing the motion to dismiss, Petitioner first correctly argues that he does not meet

the standard for filing a successive Section 2255 motion because the issues he now wishes to

present to the court are not based upon either (1) a new rule of Constitutional law made

retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review, that was previously unavailable;

or (2) newly discovered evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, any claim by Petitioner that

Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because he is precluded from filing a second Section

2255 motion is without merit. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir. 1999)(dismissal th

of a successive motion attacking sentence did not render such motion procedure an ineffective or

inadequate remedy, so as to authorize federal prisoner to seek habeas relief).

Petitioner further argues that he meets the standard for the Section 2255 savings clause,

allowing him to now proceed under Section 2241. In regard to actual innocence, Petitioner

argues that his sentence was invalid because his prior convictions did not fall within that

described in 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e). The court finds that this argument provides no basis for

an claim of actual innocence. Rather, it merely goes to validity of sentencing. 

In regard to never having had the opportunity to raise his claims earlier, Petitioner claims

that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to entertain his claim in his Section 2255

petition on the ground that Petitioner had not raised the claim on direct appeal. The court finds

that this argument provides no basis for Petitioner’s claim that he did not have the opportunity to

raise this claim earlier. To the contrary, it demonstrates the opposite. As Respondent argues,

Petitioner could have raised both of his claims in his direct appeal and his Section 2255 motion. 

Section 851 has been in effect since 1970, and Taylor was decided in 1990, the year before

Petitioner was sentenced.

Accordingly, the court hereby concludes that Petitioner has failed to carry his burden to

show that the remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Accordingly, this court

lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s Section 2241 petition.

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 02/07/07 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

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

1) That Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) That this case be dismissed with prejudice;

3) That the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case and enter judgment for

Respondent.

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 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: February 7, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 02/07/07 Page 5 of 5