Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05416/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF,

Petitioner,

 v.

VAUGHN R. WALKER, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 09-5416 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner Kevin Paul Woodruff, a federal prisoner currently

incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood,

Pennsylvania, filed a document entitled, "Common Law Writ of

Sequestration/Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." The Clerk of

the Court filed Petitioner's motion as a new habeas corpus action. 

He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. He has also filed a motion

entitled, "Motion for Leave to Issue Marshall Process, Subpoena

Without Prepayment of Costs."

According to the docket sheet in Petitioner's federal criminal

case, United States v. Woodruff, Case No. CR 93-0438-01 VRW,

Petitioner was sentenced on July 14, 1998 by the Honorable Vaughn

R. Walker of this Court to 235 months in federal prison followed by

three years of supervised release. 

Petitioner is currently serving his federal sentence. It is

not clear from the contents of the petition whether Petitioner is

challenging the legality of his 1998 federal criminal conviction

and sentence in Case No. CR 93-0438-01 VRW or challenging the

execution of his sentence. However, as explained below, Petitioner

may not seek habeas relief from this Court under either 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 or § 2241. 

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 A federal prisoner may attack the validity of his conviction

and sentence under § 2241 only if he can show that the remedy

available under § 2255 is "'inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of his detention.'" United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297,

299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This is a very

narrow exception. See id. For example, the remedy under § 2255

generally will not be inadequate or ineffective due to the delay in

considering a motion under § 2255 until direct appeals are

resolved, see id. at 299, or due to the fact that a previous § 2255

motion was denied, see Aronson v. May, __ U.S __, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5

(1964); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. 

2

A prisoner, such as Petitioner, in custody under sentence of a

federal court, who wishes to attack collaterally the validity of

his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate,

set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to § 2255 in the court

which imposed the sentence. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160,

1162 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982 (1988). Only the

sentencing court has jurisdiction. See id. at 1163. A prisoner

may not attack collaterally a federal conviction or sentence by way

of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241.1 See

Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Under § 2255, the federal sentencing court is authorized to

grant relief only if it concludes that "the sentence was imposed in

violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that

the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that

the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is

otherwise subject to collateral attack." There are time

constraints on a § 2255 motion. A motion to vacate, set aside or

correct a federal sentence under § 2255 must be filed within one

year of the latest of the date on which: (1) the judgment of

conviction became final; (2) an impediment to making a motion

created by governmental action was removed, if such action

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 6
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

prevented the petitioner from making a motion; (3) the right

asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases

on collateral review; or (4) the facts supporting the claim or

claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of

due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Because Petitioner's conviction has been final for many years,

he will need to show that subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies. The

statute of limitations in § 2255 is also subject to equitable

tolling. United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1196 (9th Cir.

2004). "When external forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of

diligence, account for the failure to file a timely claim,

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations may be

appropriate." Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.

1999). In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, the Supreme Court stated that,

generally, "a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden

of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his

rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance

stood in his way." 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005).

If instead Petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his

federal sentence, he may file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

See United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984)

(presentence time credit claim); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d

672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (parole decision claim); see also Mills v.

Taylor, 967 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992) (granting § 2241

petition alleging denial of presentence time credit). 

If Petitioner challenges the legality of his federal sentence

he should use the enclosed form for a § 2255 motion. The § 2255

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

motion must contain the caption and civil case number used in his

criminal case, United States v. Woodruff, Case No. CR 93-0438-01

VRW. Petitioner named Judge Walker as a Respondent in this action;

however, as the sentencing judge, Judge Walker cannot rule on a

§ 2255 motion if he is named as a party. Therefore, Petitioner

should not name Judge Walker as a party if he files a § 2255

motion.

If Petitioner wishes instead to challenge the execution of his

sentence he should file a petition under § 2241 in the federal

district court with jurisdiction over his custodian. See Rumsfeld

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440-42 (2004). This Court has no

jurisdiction over the warden of the United States Penitentiary in

Allenwood. See Hassain v. Johnson, 790 F.2d 1420, 1420 (9th Cir.

1986) (no jurisdiction in California to address petition from

inmate incarcerated in Arizona); United States v. Giddings, 740

F.2d 770, 771 (9th Cir. 1984) (no jurisdiction in Washington to

address petition from inmate incarcerated in Kansas).

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to

filing a § 2255 motion in his criminal action, or a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in a court with

jurisdiction over his custodian.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with

this Order, terminate all pending motions, including Petitioner's

"Motion for Leave to Issue Marshall Process, Subpoena Without

Prepayment of Costs" (docket no. 3), and close the file. 

The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a blank form for

a § 2255 motion. 

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

This Order terminates Docket no. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/16/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN-PAUL WOODRUFF,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VAUGHN R. WALKER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05416 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 16, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Kevin Paul Woodruff Reg. No. 56195-097 w/blank 2255 form

USP-Allenwood

P.O. Box 3000

White Deer, PA 17887

Dated: February 16, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05416-CW Document 5 Filed 02/16/10 Page 6 of 6