Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01343/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

Civil Case No. 13cv1343-MMA (DHB)

ORDER DISMISSING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR

OTHERWISE CORRECT

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

CRISTOBAL SANDOVAL,

Respondent.

On February 9, 2012, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant

Cristobal Sandoval pleaded guilty to a single count Information charging him with

illegal reentry subsequent to a prior deportation in violation of Title 8 of the United

States Code, Section 1326(a),(b). The Court sentenced Defendant on April 30, 2012

to 30 months imprisonment, 2 years supervised release, no fine, and a $100 penalty

assessment. On February 25, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his conviction and sentence under Title 28, section 2255. See Related Case

Nos. 12cr393/13cv448. Defendant challenged his sentence on three grounds: (1) the

Court erred in imposing a term of supervised release; (2) counsel was ineffective for

failing to challenge his prior deportation; and (3) counsel “forced” him to plead

guilty. The Court summarily dismissed the motion. 

On June 7, 2013, Defendant filed a renewed challenge to his conviction and

sentence, styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

See Doc. No. 1. After conducting an initial review of Defendant’s grounds for relief,

- 1 - 13cv1343

Case 3:13-cv-01343-MMA-DHB Document 6 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2
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

the Court determined that Defendant’s submission must be construed as a 2255

motion and ordered a response from the government.1

 See Doc. No. 3. 

The government has filed a response, arguing, inter alia, that the motion

should be dismissed pursuant to Title 28, section 2444, barring successive 2255

motions. See Doc. No 4. The Court agrees. The filing of second and successive

motions under section 2255 is prohibited unless the defendant has obtained

certification from the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244; United States v. Allen,

157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). Because Defendant’s motion has not been

certified by the circuit court as required by Section 2244, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain it, and the motion must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§

2255; 2244(3)(A); Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788, 2796 (2010); Thompson

v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Woods v. Carey,

525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Defendant’s motion. The Court

DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Defendant has not made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);

see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

1

 The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, presiding. This case was transferred pursuant to the Court’s “Low Number Rule” on July 10, 2013. See Doc. No. 5; CivLR 40.1.e.

- 2 - 13cv1343

Case 3:13-cv-01343-MMA-DHB Document 6 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2