Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02977/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02977-0/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 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARTIN MORENO-LOPEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 11-cv-2977

10-cr-4581

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

2255

Docket No. 1 

I. BACKGROUND 

On September 22, 2011, the court entered judgment against Martin Moreno-Lopez 

(“Plaintiff”) in case number 10-cr-4581 for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 

36 months in prison. On December 21, 2011 Plaintiff filed a motion for time reduction under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. 

Plaintiff’s motion seeks a downward departure or other relief under the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the 

“Equal Right Act.” Pl. Mtn. at 2. Plaintiff states that these laws are violated by the fact that a 

United States citizen is entitled to a reduction of sentence through a drug program, a halfway 

house, or a UNICOR job. According to Plaintiff, an “alien is deprived of his benefits or 

privileges due to his or her status” and faces a harsher sentence due to his status as an alien. Id.

JM

Case 3:11-cv-02977-JM Document 2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 3
 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may challenge his custody on the grounds that 

his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Under 

Rule 4(B) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, “[i]f it plainly appears from the 

motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not 

entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving 

party.” In such an instance, the district court is not required to hold a hearing or to require a 

response from the government. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). 

 Plaintiff has not cited to a specific statute or policy on which he bases his claims. 

However, he refers to a sentence reduction available to prisoners who participate in a drug 

treatment program and spend time in a halfway house. In McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 

(9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit decided a case in which a similar claim was raised. There, the 

court examined a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) regulation that excluded prisoners with 

Immigration and Naturalization Service detainers from participating in community-based drug 

treatment programs. The court upheld the regulation in the face of a Due Process and Equal 

Protection challenge. The Due Process challenge was rejected because the law in question that 

allowed for a reduction in prison time, 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), did not create a liberty interest 

in sentence reduction. The Equal Protection challenge was denied because there was no showing 

that the detainer exclusion “results in aliens as a group being treated differently from other 

persons based on their membership in the class of incarcerated aliens.” McLean, 173 F.3d at 

1185. Applying rational basis scrutiny, the court held that the detainer exclusion was a rational 

basis for the BOP’s concern that prisoners with detainers pose a higher flight risk. Id.at 1186.

 Thus, under this circuit’s precedent, excluding certain prisoners from a drug treatment 

program based on their heightened flight risk is constitutional. Thus, Plaintiff could only hope to 

succeed if he pointed to a law, regulation, or practice that indicates the exclusion targets aliens 

Case 3:11-cv-02977-JM Document 2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 2 of 3
 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

on the basis of their status as aliens. However, he has not cited any specific law or practice to 

support his claim. 

 Plaintiff also requests a downward departure on sentencing for accepting a final 

deportation order. He states that a downward departure would be appropriate because he cannot 

be housed in a minimum security facility or correctional center based on his status. However, 

the Ninth Circuit has addressed this issue and rejected Plaintiff’s argument. In United States v. 

Martinez-Ramos, 184 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999), the court held that “deportable status may 

not be a ground for downward departure from the applicable guideline range for aliens who are 

deportable.” Id. While some cases have considered downward departure on the basis of 

deportable alien status in non-§ 1326 cases, those cases are all “significantly different . . . 

[because they] involved offenses in which the defendant’s status as an alien was irrelevant, 

whereas [defendant] was convicted of a § 1326 offense in which the defendant’s status as an 

illegal alien is part and parcel of the crime.” Id. at 1057. Thus, Martinez-Ramos forecloses the 

possibility of downward departure here. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 9, 2012 

______________________________

Jeffrey T. Miller 

 United States District Judge 

______________________________

JeffreyT. Miller

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02977-JM Document 2 Filed 02/09/12 Page 3 of 3