Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00440/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00440-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

ELIAS VALENCIA HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00440 OWW DLB HC

ORDER 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. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 12, 2008. Petitioner indicates that he was

convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of California, Fresno Division case number 04-CR-5097 AWI. A review of the Petition

reveals that Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. 

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. §

Case 1:08-cv-00440-AWI Document 4 Filed 04/15/08 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

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

In this case, Petitioner contends that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth

Amendment because certain facts where not considered by the jury. Petitioner’s claims are

improperly raised in a petition under § 2241 and must be presented to the sentencing court in a

petition filed pursuant to § 2255. 

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). Although there is little th

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; Holland v. Pontesso, 2000 WL

1170161 (9 Cir. 2000) (Section 2255 not inadequate or ineffective because Petitioner misses th

statute of limitations); 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

th

Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal th

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 (9 Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez- th

Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be th

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

Case 1:08-cv-00440-AWI Document 4 Filed 04/15/08 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

(9 Cir. 1963). th

Here, Petitioner does not allege that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to protect her

rights. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to fall within an exception to this rule which would allow

him to raise such a claim in a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot proceed with the instant petition under § 2241;

however, Petitioner may re-file a petition pursuant to § 2255, if he desires to do. Accordingly, it

is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed the send Petitioner a form petition pursuant to §

2255; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may

submit the completed § 2255 form petition; and

3. If Petitioner does not wish to submit a § 2255 form petition, the Court will

proceed with a recommendation that the instant § 2241 petition be dismissed as it

is not cognizable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 14, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00440-AWI Document 4 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3