Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00747/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00747-0/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

This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS GENE MAYBERRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN ELLIS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0747 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for 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 Taft Federal Correctional

Institute located in Taft, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama entered on March 5, 1997, following his conviction by jury trial of: 1)

Conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846; and 2) Money

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1953 and 2. See p. 2, Petition. Petitioner was sentenced to 

Case 1:05-cv-00747-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 06/27/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

determinate prison terms of 292 months on Count 1 and 240 months on Count 2, with Count 2 to run

concurrent. Id.

Petitioner appealed the conviction to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 10,

1999, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. Id. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. On December 27, 2004, the sentencing court denied the

motion. Id. 

On June 9, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Petitioner alleges the following ground for relief: 1) “Whether in light of the Supreme Court’s

Blakely, Booker/Fanfan decisions, resentencing is entitled in this case.”

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

Case 1:05-cv-00747-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 06/27/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

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. Petitioner concedes

this fact. Petitioner admits bringing this petition as a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255. 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 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 the claim that § 2255 is inadequate

and ineffective. Petitioner contends that he has not challenged his sentence based on the Supreme

Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). In Blakely, the

Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Apprendi. Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2536. 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 v. New Jersey, 506 U.S. 466, 488-490 (2000).

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.

 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

Case 1:05-cv-00747-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 06/27/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

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

(9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in 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. 

It is clear that Petitioner’s arguments do not demonstrate the § 2255 forum to be inadequate

or ineffective. In Blakely, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Apprendi, which was 

decided on June 26, 2000. Blakely, 124 S.Ct. 2531; Apprendi, 506 U.S. 466. Petitioner’s motion

pursuant to § 2255 was not decided motion until December 27, 2004, over four years later. Petitioner

does not state whether he raised his sentence challenges based on Apprendi to the Eleventh Circuit in

his § 2255 motion, but it is plain that Petitioner had the opportunity. If Petitioner did not present his

Apprendi challenge to the Eleventh Circuit in the first § 2255 motion, only he can be faulted for his

failure to do so. If Petitioner did present his Apprendi challenge and the Eleventh Circuit denied the

motion, Petitioner did have an “unobstructed procedural shot” and used it. Furthermore, Petitioner

has not stated whether he has sought permission from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive § 2255

motion. It is possible that the Eleventh Circuit would grant such a motion in which case Petitioner

would have yet 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

Eleventh Circuit. 

Even if the petition were allowed to pass through the savings clause, it would be without

merit. The Ninth Circuit has held that "the Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases

on collateral review.” Cook v. United States, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioner argues that

the Supreme Court will address the question of retroactivity in Pearson v. United States, 125 S.Ct.

2277 (2005). However, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Pearson. Id.

 Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

Case 1:05-cv-00747-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 06/27/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 5

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 Oliver W. Wanger,

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: June 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00747-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 5