Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00135/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00135-1/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

JOSE M. ARCINIESA,

Petitioner,

v.

BERNIE ELLIS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0135 REC DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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. 

Plaintiff filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 7, 2006. 

Petitioner indicates that he was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California, Sacramento Division of a violation of Title 21, United States Code,

sections 846 and 841 (a)(1). (Petition, at 2.) Petitioner states that he previously filed a motion to

vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under section 2255, in the trial court, which was denied

on March 14, 2000. (Id.) 

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that the trial court’s reliance on the Presentence

Report as evidence of his prior conviction is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court

decision of Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), which was not available at the time of

trial or at the time the prior 2255 motion was filed. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00135-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 04/25/06 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

DISCUSSION

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 (9 Cir.1988); Thompson v. th

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8 Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3 1997); th rd

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing th

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 (9 Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see th

also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5 Cir.1980). th

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 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, th

177 (5 Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2 Cir. 1991); United th nd

States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6 Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 th

(3 Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8 Cir. 1987); Brown v. rd th

United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9 Cir. 1990). th

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if

he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of his detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5 (9 Cir.2000); United th

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9 Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has th

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 ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054,

1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions th

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) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a th th

Case 1:06-cv-00135-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 04/25/06 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

petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams

v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see th th

United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of th

§ 2255 may not be circumvented by 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

Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). A federal court must dismiss a second or

successive petition that raises the same grounds as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The

court must also dismiss a second or successive petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner

can show that 1) the claim rests on a new, retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis

of the claim was not previously discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish

by clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder

would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B).

However, it is not the district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets

these requirements, which allow a petitioner to file a second or successive petition. 

Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by

this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words,

Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive

petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must

dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave

to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or

successive petition. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9 Cir. 1998) (failure to th

request the requisite authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion deprives the

district court of jurisdiction). 

Petitioner makes no showing that he has obtained or sought permission to file a

Case 1:06-cv-00135-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 04/25/06 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

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 petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

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

These Findings and Recommendations are 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. 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: April 25, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00135-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4