Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00431/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00431-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARLA VANESSA CHAVARRIA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06036-KAW (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner Karla Vanessa Chavarria, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of 

California and is now confined in the Northern District of California.

A district court must determine at the outset whether a petition filed by a federal prisoner is 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because Congress has given jurisdiction over 

these petitions to different courts. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2000)

Challenges to the legality of a federal conviction or sentence must be filed in a motion pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. Id. at 864; Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Only the sentencing court has jurisdiction over these claims. Id. at 1163. In contrast, 

challenges to the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the custodial court. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864. 

There is an exception to this general rule: a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under 

§ 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if the prisoner can show the remedy available under § 2255 is 

“‘inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.’” United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 

297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This is known as the “savings clause.” 

Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864 n.2.

The petition challenges the criminal judgment imposed against Petitioner in the Southern 

District of California. Her claims are: (1) insufficiency of the evidence; (2) unconstitutional denial 

Case 3:19-cv-00431-LAB-LL Document 9 Filed 02/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of her right to a competency hearing; and (3) improper intimidation of defense witness. Therefore, 

this case is properly brought in a § 2255 motion in the Southern District. However, Petitioner

alleges that “her remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her 

detention.” 

When a prisoner files a habeas petition under § 2241 claiming the remedy provided by 

§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the district court must determine whether a § 2241 remedy is 

available under the savings clause of § 2255. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864–65. 

The Ninth Circuit has said the savings clause exception is “very narrow.” Pirro, 104 F.3d 

at 299. For example, the remedy under § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective only because a 

previous § 2255 motion was denied. See Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163; see also Lane v. Hanberry, 

601 F.2d 805 (§ 2241 petition not proper unless petitioner can show more than lack of success in 

prior § 2255). Also, the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as successive does not render relief under §

2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Moore v. Reno, 185 F. 3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The petition indicates that Petitioner filed direct appeals but did not file a motion under 

§ 2255. She has not stated why her claims cannot be heard in the sentencing court by way of a 

§ 2255 motion. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has failed to show that her case falls under 

the “narrow exception” described in Pirro. See Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299 (prisoner may not seek 

relief under § 2241 if he has failed to apply for relief under § 2255 to the court which sentenced 

him). 

In the interests of justice, this Court exercises its discretion to transfer the petition to the 

Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (transfer to cure want of jurisdiction). The 

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00431-LAB-LL Document 9 Filed 02/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2