Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00277-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LONDREY GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00277-EPG-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Eric Londrey Griffin is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the 

United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California, serving a sentence imposed by the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. On February 29, 2016, Petitioner filed 

the instant petition. (ECF No. 1). 

I.

DISCUSSION

A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. Hernandez 

v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). A federal prisoner who wishes to 

challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal conviction or sentence must do so by 

moving the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). In contrast, a 

Case 1:16-cv-00277-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 03/14/16 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

prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence‟s execution must bring a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where the petitioner is in 

custody. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864.

“The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a 

federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a 

§ 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Stephens v. 

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 

Despite Petitioner‟s assertion that he is challenging a “fundamental defect in the 

execution of the detention,” the instant petition challenges the sentence imposed by the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in light of the Supreme Court‟s recent 

decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2552 (2015). (ECF No. 1 at 6, 13).1Further, the 

relief Petitioner seeks is for the Court to “vacate current federal sentence and conduct de novo

resentencing in which [Petitioner] would not be deemed an armed career criminal.” (Id. at 18).

This is an attack on the validity of Petitioner‟s federal sentence. Therefore, the appropriate 

procedure would be to file a § 2255 motion in the court that imposed the sentence rather than a 

§ 2241 habeas petition in this Court.

Nevertheless, a “savings clause” or “escape hatch” exists in § 2255(e) by which a federal 

prisoner may seek relief under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 

to be “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1047

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Harrison, 519 F.3d at 956;

Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864–65. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow 

exception. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The remedy under § 2255 

usually will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was 

denied, or because a remedy under § 2255 is procedurally barred. 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).

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00277-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 03/14/16 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

3

A petitioner may proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause when the petitioner 

“(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an „unobstructed procedural shot‟ at 

presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (citing Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060). In the Ninth 

Circuit, a claim of actual innocence for purposes of the § 2255 savings clause is tested by the 

standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). 

Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. In Bousley, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]o establish actual 

innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not 

that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). Furthermore, “actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal 

insufficiency.” Id. With respect to the second requirement, “it is not enough that the petitioner is 

presently barred from raising his claim of innocence by motion under § 2255. He must never 

have had the opportunity to raise it by motion.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060. 

It is unclear to the Court at this time whether the Court has jurisdiction over the instant 

petition pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255(e). Pursuant to the Court‟s authority under Rule 

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,2the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the 

petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties shall submit briefing 

addressing whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition pursuant to the

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service 

of this order; and

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a reply to Petitioner‟s response to the order to show cause 

 

2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 

by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.).

Case 1:16-cv-00277-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 03/14/16 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

within THIRTY (30) days of the date Petitioner‟s brief is filed with the Court.

All briefs shall be filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

Local Rule 230(l). These dates should be considered as firm by all parties. Extensions of time 

will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are 

applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00277-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 4