Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-04019/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-04019-0/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

SANDRA CRUZ NORIEGA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CHARLESTON IWUAGWU,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4019 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Dublin filed a pro se petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The original petition was dismissed

with leave to amend and petitioner has filed an amended petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court must determine at the outset whether a petition filed by a federal

prisoner is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because congress has given

jurisdiction over these petitions to different courts. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861,

865-66 (9th Cir. 2000). A petition under § 2241 must be heard in the district of

confinement, whereas if the petition is properly brought under § 2255, it must be heard by

the sentencing court. Id. at 865.

A federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement must generally

rely on a § 2255 motion to do so. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.

2006) ("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. §

Case 1:15-cv-04019-NJV Document 15 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2241." (citation omitted)). There is, however, an exception to that general rule. Under the

"escape hatch" of § 2255, a federal prisoner may file a § 2241 petition if, and only if, the

remedy under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). A prisoner may file a § 2241 petition under the escape

hatch when the prisoner "(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim." Id. at 898 (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner entered a guilty plea in the District of Arizona on October 11, 2012. See

United States v. Cruz, et. al, 11-cr-2729 DCB-JR. The written plea agreement specified

that there was no agreement whether the sentence would be consecutive or concurrent to

a separate sentence arising from a case in the Western District of Texas. Docket No. 289

at 3-4 in 11-cr-2729. On February 27, 2013, she was sentenced to 36 months on count 1

and 48 months on count 2, and the term to run concurrent on both counts. Docket No. 574

at 9 in 11-cr-2729. However, the Court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to her

sentence in the Western District of Texas. Id. 

Petitioner argues that it was only when she was preparing to be released from the

sentence from the Western District of Texas that she learned the sentence from the District

of Arizona was consecutive and not concurrent. However, the sentencing transcript

indicates that Petitioner was present when sentence was imposed and the Court

specifically noted that the 48 months was to run consecutive to the sentence in Texas. 

Docket No. 574 at 2-3, 8 in 11-cr-2729. 

To the extent Petitioner challenges the sentence as improper under the guidelines,

this argument does not raise a claim of actual innocence to qualify for the escape hatch of

§ 2241. See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner's escape

hatch argument that he should not have qualified as a career offender in sentencing is not

one of actual innocence). Moreover, petitioner has not argued that she did not have an

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting this claim. To the extent Petitioner seeks to

Case 1:15-cv-04019-NJV Document 15 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

challenge the legality of her confinement and raise claims regarding her sentence or to

argue that counsel was ineffective with respect to her plea, she must file a § 2255 petition

in the District of Arizona.

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above, therefore the motion for

discovery and an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 3) is DENIED. Because reasonable

jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is

DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-04019-NJV Document 15 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 3