Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01249/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01249-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

 Durrani purports to name the undersigned District Judge as a Respondent The court

construes the petition as seeking 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief.

1 06CV1730

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARIF DURRANI,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1249-LAB (NLS)

CASE STATUS, NOTICE, AND

vs. SCHEDULING ORDER

S.A. HOLENCIK, LARRY ALAN BURNS,

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, Attorney

General, 

Respondents.

On July 10, 2007, petitioner Arif Durrani ("Durrani"), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition

For Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case

was originally assigned to District Judge Napoleon A. Jones, then was reassigned to the

undersigned District Judge.1 In a Discrepancy Order entered August 1, 2007, the court

rejected a claim for return of property, indicating that claim was part of the habeas petition

and would be dealt with in the normal course.

The court finds the petition actually seeks relief appropriately pursued under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Durrani asserts he has suffered an "illegal conviction" in case numbers

06mc0160-IEG and 05cr1746-LAB, contending the conviction was for a different offense,

Case 3:07-cv-01249-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06CV1730

in purported violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3192, the doctrine of specialty, and Fifth Amendment

due process. He attaches to his petition a Ninth Circuit Order filed March 30, 2007 in Case

No. 06cv1730-LAB(JMA), which is the subject of separate proceedings in this court following

the vacating of the Judgment in the latter case, with instructions on remand. The Ninth

Circuit concurred with this court in that earlier case the habeas relief Durrani sought there

was also appropriately construed as motion under Section 2255 rather than a petition for

28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief, as he had styled it. 

The court has considered Durrani's arguments in the instant petition and rejects his

characterization of the relief and grounds for relief in his circumstances in this case as other

than a Section 2255 motion. However, before the court can recharacterize a pro se filing as

a Section 2255 motion, it must provide the following explanation, notice, and admonitions:

In such circumstances the district court must notify the pro se

litigant that it intends to recharacterize the pleading, warn the

litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent

§ 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on “second or

successive” motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity

to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all

the § 2255 claims he believes he has. If the court fails to do so,

the motion cannot be considered to have become a § 2255

motion for purposes of applying to later motions the law's

“second or successive” restrictions. § 2255, ¶ 8.

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003) (emphasis added).

The court hereby notifies Durrani of its intent to construe and process his petition in

this case as a Section 2255 motion rather than a Section 2241 Petition. The court hereby

warns Durrani of the consequences of that treatment: 

Under a longstanding practice, a court sometimes treats

as a request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a motion

that a pro se federal prisoner has labeled differently. Such

recharacterization can have serious consequences for the

prisoner, for it subjects any subsequent motion under § 2255

to the restrictive conditions that federal law imposes upon

a “second or successive” (but not upon a first) federal

habeas motion. § 2255, ¶ 8. 

Castro, 540 U.S. at 377 (emphasis added).

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01249-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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 06CV1730

Before proceeding, the court provides Durrani with this "opportunity to withdraw, or

to amend" the filing (Castro, 540 U.S. at 377, 382), in consideration of the potential

consequences. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Durrani may file a request to withdraw his

current petition, or to file an Amended Petition on or before October 31, 2007. If he neither

withdraws nor amends his petition by that deadline, the court will proceed to reach the merits

of his petition construed as a Section 2255 Motion. If he does not timely withdraw the

petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Respondents shall serve and file a Response to the

petition or Amended Petition on or before November 26, 2007, and Durrani may serve and

file a Reply on or before December 24, 2007, with the matter thereafter under submission

for decision on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01249-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3