Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00388-0/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

RONALD JEROME FISHER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 ) 

 )

 )

1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

ORDER TO FORTHWITH AWARD WRIT

OR ISSUE ORDER DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY WRIT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

(Doc. 4)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on March 24, 2005. (Doc. 1). Petitioner

asserts a claim of actual innocence to the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 1992, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A). (Id. at p. 1). Section 841(b)(1)(A) provides for an enhanced life sentence where

the defendant has two or more prior drug convictions. Petitioner contends that in 2001, the Los

Angeles County Superior Court (“Superior Court”) ordered one of the two predicate felony

convictions used to enhance Petitioner’s 1992 sentence reduced to a misdemeanor. Accordingly,

Petitioner claims that he is now actually innocent of the enhancement, i.e., that he does not have

two prior felony drug convictions upon which his life sentence may be enhanced. 

Case 1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG Document 5 Filed 06/27/05 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

2

On June 3, 2005, Petitioner filed an application requesting that the Court either

immediately grant his habeas petition or issue to Respondent an order to show cause why the

petition should not be granted. (Doc. 4). 

DISCUSSION 

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 (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). 

Petitioner’s allegation of actual innocence based upon the judicial determination of the

Superior Court is a claim that challenges the validity of his federal sentence imposed by the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Thus, Petitioner is precluded

from raising this claim in a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. 

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 (9th Cir.2000); United

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has

Case 1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG Document 5 Filed 06/27/05 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

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); 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 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63

 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or 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); see United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001)

(procedural requirements of § 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 (9th Cir. 1963). 

In this case, Petitioner’s direct challenge to his sentence is inappropriately raised in a

petition filed pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner states that he seeks relief pursuant to § 2241 because

“the AEDPA amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denies him any opportunity to obtain judicial

determination and rectification of the fundamental defect in his sentence when he has never had

any unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his actual innocent claim... .” (Doc. 1, p. 3). 

Thus, Petitioner contends that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.” (Id.) 

Petitioner has provided no facts or circumstances showing that § 2255 is either

inadequate or ineffective. Petitioner has not shown that he did not have an opportunity to present

his claim in a prior § 2255 motion. Indeed, Petitioner does not allege that he has ever attempted

to proceed via § 2255 during the nearly four years that have elapsed since the Superior Court

reduced Petitioner’s prior conviction to a misdemeanor in 2001. Petitioner contends only that he

filed at least one unsuccessful § 2255 motion after his sentence was affirmed, and that the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Texas “repeatedly refuse to allow the Petitioner

utilize section § 2255.” (Doc. 1, Memorandum, pp. 1, 8). 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG Document 5 Filed 06/27/05 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

1

 Petitioner’s Bureau of Prisons prisoner number is 20604-077 (Doc. 1), which is the identical BOP prisoner

number for the defendant in United States v. Ronald Jerome Fisher, 264 F.Supp. 2d 468 (N.D. Texas 2003).

2

 Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201 allows the Court to take judicial notice of orders and decisions of

other courts. Papai v. Harbor Tug and Barge Co., 67 F.3d 203, 207 fn 5 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), rev’d on

other grounds, 520 U.S. 548, 117 S. Ct. 1535 (1997); United States ex rel Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v.

Borneo, Inc. 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both

within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”)

(citations omitted). 

4

Petitioner’s prior efforts to modify his sentence in the sentencing court appear to be the

subject of at least one federal decision: United States of America v. Ronald Jerome Fisher, 

264 F.Supp. 2d 468 (N.D. Texas, May 6, 2003).

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the date and

existence of the decision, wherein Petitioner’s claim of actual innocence of aggravating factors

used to enhance his sentence was the subject of a “Motion for Modification of an Imposed Term

of Imprisonment.”2 The District Court denied Petitioner’s motion to modify his sentence,

alternatively construed it as a successive motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, and dismissed the motion without prejudice for failure to obtain authorization from the

court of appeals.

Petitioner’s lack of success in his prior efforts to modify his sentence does not mean that

he did not have an opportunity to obtain judicial correction of an alleged defect in his sentence,

or that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention. Petitioner’s

remedy under § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective because his previous collateral

attacks have been unsuccessful or because he cannot meet the strict procedural requirements for

filing a successive § 2255 petition. Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Similarly, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because a particular petitioner’s § 2255

motion is procedurally barred. Id. at 1055. Further, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective

because a petitioner misses the statute of limitations. Id.

Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims in federal court, he must do so by way of a

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court

where he was originally sentenced.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG Document 5 Filed 06/27/05 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

5

In light of the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for a reduction of his sentence to a term of

ten years must be denied, and the instant petition must therefore be DISMISSED. 

Further, in light of the Court’s recommendation, Petitioner’s application for an order

granting the petition or for an order directing Respondent to show cause why the petition should

not be granted, is moot and must therefore be DENIED.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case 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 of this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

ORDER

In light of the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for 

Order to Forthwith Award the Writ or Issue an Order Directing the Respondent to Show Cause

Why the Writ Should Not Be Granted (Doc. 4), is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00388-REC-TAG Document 5 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 5