Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00352-1/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

)

WALTER REAMY, JR., )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

BERNARD ELLIS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1: 05-cv- 0352 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the

validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner 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. 

See, e.g., Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, th

37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2 Cir. nd

Case 1:05-cv-00352-LJO -WMW Document 11 Filed 02/12/07 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

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

F.2d476, 478-79 (3 Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8 Cir. rd th

1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9 Cir. 1990). A petitioner filing a Petition th

for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of

the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2241 on the ground that Petitioner has not yet challenged his sentence under

Section 2255. Petitioner has not opposed or otherwise responded to Respondent’s motion.

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

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

As Respondent argues, the present petition fails the requirements of showing actual

Case 1:05-cv-00352-LJO -WMW Document 11 Filed 02/12/07 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

innocence and that Petitioner never had the opportunity to raise it by motion to demonstrate that

§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Petitioner does not claim that he is innocent of the charges,

but rather claims only that his sentence is invalid. Further, because he has not yet filed a petition

pursuant to Section 2255, he still has that opportunity. Accordingly, this petition must be

dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s motion to

dismiss be GRANTED and that this petition be dismissed without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendation 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 Recommendation.” 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: February 12, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00352-LJO -WMW Document 11 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 3