Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00480-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

 1:05-cv-00480 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DECLINING TO

ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

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. Section 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. 

On January 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge conducted a preliminary review of the

petition and found that the ordering of an answer was not warranted. The Magistrate Judge

entered findings and recommendations in this case, finding that Petitioner is attempting to

challenging the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence on the ground that the district

court and the federal government were without jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime of

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

which he was convicted, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2113(a) and (2). The Magistrate

Judge found that Petitioner has made no showing that the remedy available under 

Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5

(9 Cir. 2000) ( A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under Section 2255 may seek th

relief under Section 2241 if he can show that the remedy available under Section 2255 is

"inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention."). The Magistrate Judge

concluded, therefore, that Petitioner may not seek to challenge the constitutionality of either

his conviction or his sentence through this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2241. Accordingly, the court recommended that this petition be denied, and

granted any party thirty days to file objections..

Due to a clerical error, the findings and recommendations were not immediately

served on Petitioner. On March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for disposition and

clarification, in which Petitioner alerted the court to the fact that he had not been served with

the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, on March 14, 2006, the Clerk of the Court

reserved the findings and recommendations on all parties. 

On May 5, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

raising several separate objections. First, Petitioner contends that the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge should be stricken because before their issuance,

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Citing Jacks v. United States, 435 F.2d 317, 318 (9 Cir. 1970), Petitioner claims that the th

Magistrate Judge could not properly proceed with the present petition under Section 2241

because of the pendency of the petition for writ of mandamus at the Court of Appeals. Jacks

stands for the proposition that a prisoner may not simultaneously challenge a conviction and

sentence through both a direct appeal and petition for writ of habeas corpus. That proposition

has no application to the present case, because there is no indication that the petition for writ

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

The court notes that the docket for case number 06-71086 in the Ninth Circuit reflects a 1

filing date of March 1, 2006, despite Petitioner’s claim that it was received by the court on

December 30, 2005.

3

of mandamus was used to challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. Accordingly, 1

Petitioner’s request that the findings and recommendations be stricken is DENIED.

Second, Petitioner objects to what he describes as the Magistrate Judge’s

recharacterization of his Section 2241 as a Section 2255 petition. The Magistrate Judge did

not so recharacterize the petition, but rather expressly considered it as a Section 2241

petition. Therefore, this objection is without merit.

Third, Petitioner addresses the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner has made no

showing that the remedy available under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, so as to

support his seeking relief pursuant to Section 2241. Petitioner claims that he has met this

standard because he “has not had any meaningful review of his Constitutional claims now

before the court, and therefore § 2255 was “inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of

his conviction and sentence.” 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. As the Magistrate Judge explained,

the exception to that rule is that 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). In order to demonstrate that Section 2255 is inadequate or th

ineffective a petitioner must show actual innocence and that he never had the opportunity to

raise it by motion. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003). By simply arguing that

he has not had any meaningful review of his Constitutional claims, Petitioner fails to meet

that standard. Therefore, this objection is without merit.

Fourth, Petitioner contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to recognize his

argument, contained in his Amendment and Supplemental Pleading filed April 19, 2005, that

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

he is being illegally detained based on the executive order in which the president signed the

three strikes law. It is not necessary to address the merits of Petitioner’s argument regarding

the President’s executive order, because regardless of its merits, the argument does not

overcome the fact that Petitioner has not met the controlling legal standard for challenging

his conviction by way of Section 2241. Accordingly, this objection is without merit.

Fifth, Petitioner initially contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to recognize his

Brady claim. For the same reasons as Petitioner’s fourth contention, this contention lacks

merit. However, Petitioner then presents for the first time an argument addressing actual

innocence and why he never had the opportunity to raise his claim by motion. The court

finds that Respondent must be given an opportunity to address this argument, which was not

presented in the petition. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) The court DECLINES TO ADOPT the findings and recommendations entered

January 12, 2006; and 

2) A separate order shall be entered ordering Respondent to respond to the petition.IT IS

SO ORDERED.

Emm0d6Dated: February 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 4