Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00300-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAATAUSILI MARK ALAIMALO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-00300 REC SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION 

[Doc. #13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On March 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After conducting a

preliminary review of the petition, on April 7, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent

to file a response to the petition. On May 24, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time

to supplement his petition. On June 1, 2005, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for an extension of

time finding no good cause to allow Petitioner to amend the petition to include two additional

claims. On June 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a supplement despite the Court’s ruling. Petitioner

requests that the petitioner be amended to include his new claims.

Case 1:05-cv-00300-REC -SMS Document 16 Filed 07/07/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

DISCUSSION

As discussed in the Court’s order dated June 1, 2005, the Court issued an order directing

Respondent to respond to the petition pending before the Court in which Petitioner challenges his

1997 convictions for drug possession and trafficking. In his petition, Petitioner contends his

convictions are invalid because his conduct of transporting drugs on a nonstop flight from California

to Guam did not constitute importation within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). 

In his motion for extension of time dated May 24, 2005, and the instant motion to supplement

the petition, Petitioner seeks to supplement the petition to include two additional claims. In one

claim, Petitioner challenges his prior misdemeanor convictions. In the second claim, Petitioner

contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to an alleged illegal search by the

police. As already discussed in the order dated June 1, 2005, Petitioner’s motion must be denied

because the additional claims cannot be brought in this action. The instant petition concerns

Petitioner’s 1997 convictions; challenges to prior convictions must be brought in a separate petition. 

Insofar as Petitioner wishes to challenge his prior convictions as they enhanced his current federal

sentence, Petitioner may not do so. Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (“[i]f . . . a prior

conviction used to enhance a federal sentence is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its

own right because the defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or

because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), then that defendant may not collaterally attack his prior

conviction through a motion under § 2255.”) With respect to the issue of ineffective assistance of

counsel, the claim cannot pass through the savings clause. Petitioner has not shown that “the remedy

by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention." Ivy v.

Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting § 2255). In this claim, Petitioner does not

contend that he is innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted; rather, he claims his

attorneys were ineffective in failing to raise an evidentiary issue, to wit, that law enforcement made

false statements while conducting a search. In addition, Petitioner has not shown that he has never

had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting this claim.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1059-60, citing

Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, with

respect to these additional claims, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the § 2255 forum to be inadequate

Case 1:05-cv-00300-REC -SMS Document 16 Filed 07/07/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

or ineffective. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to supplement the petition is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00300-REC -SMS Document 16 Filed 07/07/05 Page 3 of 3