Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00306-0/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 1This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERMAN LOPEZ-SALINAS,

Petitioner,

v.

R.D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-00306 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

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

Penitentiary at Taft Correctional Institution, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United

States District Court for the Central District of California entered on June 17, 2002, following his

conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Petitioner was

sentenced to a term of 120 months in federal prison.

Petitioner does not indicate whether he appealed his conviction. 

On March 3, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner alleges the following grounds for relief: 1) “Bureau of Prisons Treatment of

Illegal Aliens the [sic] Disparate Treatment Given by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to Sentence

Case 1:05-cv-00306-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 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

 Petitioner argues that because of the BOP’s disparate treatment he is entitled to a downward departure on

his sentence. 

2

Aliens with a Deportation Detainers [sic];2 2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; and 3) The

District Court Violated Petitioner’s Rights Imposing Sentence of an Excessive of [sic] Time.”

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. 

On the form petition, Petitioner does not indicate whether he has filed a § 2255 motion

indicating that it not applicable. (Petition, at 6.)

In addition, Petitioner makes no claim that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Should

the Petitioner wish to pursue his claims in federal court, he must do so by way of a motion to

Case 1:05-cv-00306-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 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

 A petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where petitioner was

originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges convictions and sentences adjudicated in the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California. 

3

vacate or set aside pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.3 

RECOMMENDATION

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

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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: May 19, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00306-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 3