Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01337/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01337-0/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

ROBERT F. SCHUH,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1337 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. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States

Penitentiary at Atwater, California, pursuant to a conviction for maintaining a drug house in

violation of Title 21 of the United States Code § 856(a)(1). Petitioner does not indicate the

location of the Court of conviction. Petitioner does indicate, however, that he appealed his

sentence and, in May 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and

ordered the four point upward departure removed. Petitioner was re-sentenced on July 3, 2002. 

Petitioner filed another appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 12, 2003,

the Seventh Circuit declined to hear the second appeal. Petitioner then filed a motion to vacate,

set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. The

motion was denied, without prejudice.

Case 1:05-cv-01337-REC-DLB Document 3 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 5
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

On September 23, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to have his sentence corrected pursuant to the

standards set forth in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and that his counsel was ineffective. 

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, 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. 

However, a petition contending Petitioner's conviction is invalid is still a § 2255 petition

regardless of what Petitioner calls the petition. See Brown, 610 F.2d at 677.

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

Case 1:05-cv-01337-REC-DLB Document 3 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 5
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

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

(quoting § 2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an

inadequate or ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow

exception. Id; Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a

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

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

Cir.1956). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. 

Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 

In the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner makes no attempt to demonstrate that

§ 2255 is inadequate and ineffective. Petitioner concedes that he has challenged his sentence

pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, by way of a § 2255 motion. In Apprendi, the Supreme Court

held that “any fact [other than a the fact of a prior conviction] that increases the penalty for a

crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488-490. In Blakely, the Supreme Court reaffirmed

its holding in Apprendi. Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2536. To the extent Petitioner claims that § 2255

review is “inadequate or ineffective” within the meaning of the “savings clause” of § 2255

because he has already filed a motion pursuant to § 2255 which was denied, it is without merit.

 The Ninth Circuit has provided little guidance on what constitutes “inadequate and

ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “[o]ther

circuits have held that . . . a federal prisoner who is actually innocent of the crime of conviction,

but who has never had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting a claim of innocence, may

resort to § 2241 if the possibility of relief under § 2255 is foreclosed.” Lorentsen v. Hood, 223

F.3d 950, 954 (9 Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in th

Lorentsen specifically declined to decide whether to adopt the holdings of any other circuits. Id. 

Notably, however, the Ninth Circuit did find that the Petitioner in Lorentsen could not invoke the

“escape hatch in § 2255" because the Petitioner was not “actually innocent” of the underlying

conviction. Id. 

Case 1:05-cv-01337-REC-DLB Document 3 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner does not, and cannot, demonstrate that the § 2255 forum is inadequate or

ineffective. Apprendi was decided on June 26, 2000. Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466. Petitioner did not

pled guilty to the underlying offense until July 31, 2000. (Petition at 3.) Petitioner clearly had

the opportunity to raise both his claims under Apprendi and Blakely to the Seventh Circuit Court

of Appeals. If Petitioner did not present his claims, including his claim that trial counsel was

ineffective, in his first § 2255 motion, only he can be faulted for his failure to do so. As

Petitioner clearly concedes in his petition, Petitioner raised his claim under Blakely to the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Petitioner therefore had an “unobstructed procedural shot”

and took advantage of it. Petitioner has not demonstrated the remedy to be inadequate or

ineffective. In Moore v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit stated, “the dismissal of a subsequent § 2255

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not render federal habeas relief an ineffective or

inadequate remedy.” 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999). Moreover, Petitioner does not indicate th

whether he 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 Apprendi and Blakely challenges. 

In addition, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is “actually innocent” of the offense

and therefore deserving of the savings clause exception. Petitioner makes no claim that he is

factually innocent of the underlying conviction; rather, Petitioner claims constitutional error in

the factors underlying his sentence. Sentencing error does not constitute actual innocence as set

forth by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (“To establish

actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely

than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.”). Like the petitioner in Lorentsen,

Petitioner fails to demonstrate actual innocence. 

Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not alleges grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief

Case 1:05-cv-01337-REC-DLB Document 3 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

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: November 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01337-REC-DLB Document 3 Filed 11/15/05 Page 5 of 5