Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01834-1/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

ARNOLD HAILASSIE,

Petitioner,

v.

D. SMITH, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01834 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 17, 2007. 

Petitioner states that on July 22, 2003, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of

California filed an information charging Petitioner with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371(b) and 18

U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). See 2:03-cr-s-00336 GEB. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on March 4,

2005, Petitioner was sentenced to forty-five months imprisonment with a special assessment fee

of $200, and restitution in the amount of $75,683.67. 

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that the sentencing court failed to set a

mandatory restitution schedule and erred by delegating such authority to the Bureau of Prisons to

make such schedule. (Petition, at 4.) Petitioner requests that “this court issue an order to

‘STAY’ collection on all restitution payments, until the sentencing court and after the

Petitioner’s release, can make a determination on any scheduling of payments. . . .” (Petition, at

Case 1:07-cv-01834-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 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

5.)

JURISDICTION

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). 

In this case, as Petitioner contends the District Court erred in failing to set forth a

restitution order, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his sentence rather

than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would

be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. 

In rare situations, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief

under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective

to test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997)

(quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has 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

Case 1:07-cv-01834-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 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

ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the th

AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions does not render § 2255 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 (9 Cir. 2000) th

(same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment th

do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); th

Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 th

F.3d 1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by th

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 (9 Cir. 1963). th

In his petition, Petitioner states that he is time-barred from receiving any relief from the

sentencing court, and pursuant to his plea agreement he waived his right to attack his conviction

and sentence. (Petition, at 4.) 

The mere fact that Petitioner is time-barred from raising his claim via § 2255 does not

render this avenue as inadequate or ineffective. Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d at 1055. Although it

appears that Petitioner has previously filed a § 2255 motion, Petitioner has not stated whether he

has sought permission to file a successive § 2255 motion. It is possible that the motion would be

granted in which case Petitioner would have another opportunity to present his claim in the

proper forum. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that he did not have an “unobstructed procedural

shot” at presenting his challenges to the sentencing court. Accordingly, the petition should be

dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and,

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment, terminating this action.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:07-cv-01834-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 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 after being served with a copy, 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 Findings and Recommendations.” 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 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01834-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4