Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745-0/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

This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARLAND JEFFERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0745 AWI LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary

located in Atwater, California, pursuant to two separate judgments from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana: 1) In 1974, Petitioner was convicted of conspiring to

distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and 2) In 1975, Petitioner was

convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE") in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848.

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

See United States v. Jeffers, 388 F.3d 289, 290-291 (7th Cir.2004). Petitioner was sentenced to a 

determinate prison terms of 15 years plus a $25,000.00 fine for the 1974 conspiracy conviction. Id. at

291. He was given a consecutive life sentence plus a $100,000.00 fine for the 1975 CCE conviction.

Id.

Petitioner appealed the convictions to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh

Circuit subsequently affirmed the conspiracy conviction. United States v. Jeffers, 520 F.2d 1256 (7th

Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1066, 96 S.Ct. 805, 46 L.Ed.2d 656 (1976). The Seventh Circuit

also upheld the second conviction and sentence on appeal. United States v. Jeffers, 532 F.2d 1101

(7th Cir.1976). On May 10, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. Id. 

The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the consecutive

prosecutions for § 846 conspiracy and § 848 CCE were contrary to the Double Jeopardy Clause of

the Fifth Amendment. Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (1977). Separate majorities of the

Supreme Court coalesced to uphold Jeffers' CCE conviction against the double jeopardy challenge

(the plurality and Justice White) but to vacate and remand the judgment insofar as it imposed

cumulative fines (the plurality and the dissenters). Jeffers, 388 F.3d at 291-292. Specifically, the

Supreme Court found that Petitioner had waived whatever right he may have had to object to the

second prosecution under § 848 when he opposed the Government's motion, brought before the first

trial, to consolidate the proceedings. Jeffers, 432 U.S. 149-150.

As summarized by the Seventh Circuit, Petitioner has spent the last thirty years challenging

his CCE conviction as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause: 

Since the conclusion of his direct appeal, Jeffers has attempted numerous collateral

attacks upon his CCE conviction, including a total of five petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

three requests for leave to file additional § 2255 challenges, and three petitions under 28

U.S.C. § 2241. All have been unsuccessful.

Id.

On June 9, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Petitioner alleges his CCE conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

JURISDICTION

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his conviction

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

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). 

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his sentence rather

than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to

file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner concedes

this fact. Petitioner admits bringing this petition as a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255. However,

a petition contending Petitioner's conviction is invalid is still a § 2255 petition regardless of what

Petitioner calls the petition. See Brown, 610 F.2d at 677.

In rare situations, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief

under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective to

test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting §

2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an inadequate or

ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Aronson

v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render §

2255 inadequate.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

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). The Ninth Circuit has

acknowledged that “[o]ther circuits have held that . . . a federal prisoner who is actually innocent of

the crime of conviction, but who has never had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting a claim

of innocence, may resort to § 2241 if the possibility of relief under § 2255 is foreclosed.” Lorentsen

v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Ninth

Circuit in Lorentsen specifically declined to decide whether to adopt the holdings of any other

circuits. Id. Notably, however, the Ninth Circuit did find that the Petitioner in Lorentsen could not

invoke the “escape hatch in § 2255" because the Petitioner was not “actually innocent” of the

underlying conviction. Id. 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 the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner makes the claim that § 2255 is inadequate

and ineffective, because, he contends, he has not had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting

his double jeopardy challenge. Petitioner’s thirty year history of challenging his CCE conviction at

all levels of the federal courts shows this is not so. In fact, as previously noted the Supreme Court

specifically upheld the CCE conviction against his double jeopardy challenge. See Jeffers v. United

States, 432 U.S. 137, 149-150 (1977). Nevertheless, Petitioner claims his double jeopardy challenge

relies on a new rule of law set forth in Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996). In Rutledge,

the Supreme Court held that a conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances is a lesser

included offense of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and is based on the same

underlying conduct as a conviction for CCE, and therefore amounts to improper, cumulative, and

second punishment. Id. at 302. However, this is not a new rule of law. It is the same rule of law that

was considered by the Supreme Court in Petitioner’s case. However, the Supreme Court declined to

extend the rule to Petitioner’s case and hold the conspiracy to be a lesser included offense because it

found that even if it was, Petitioner had waived whatever right he may have had to object to the

second prosecution under § 848 when he opposed the Government's motion to consolidate the

proceedings. Jeffers, 432 U.S. 149-150.

Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner’s arguments do not merit the application of the savings

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 5

clause. Petitioner has had several unobstructed opportunities to present his double jeopardy

challenge to all levels of the federal courts. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, 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 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 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 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: June 29, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 06/30/05 Page 5 of 5