Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03682/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03682-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NINA MARIE STRICKLAND,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-3682 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Dublin, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a sentence imposed by the United

States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2008, petitioner was convicted of interference with

commerce by threat or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) and (b)(3). 

She was sentenced as a career offender to 180 months imprisonment. Petitioner

did not appeal.

On June 8, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, the United States

District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. But the sentencing

court denied the § 2255 motion as untimely and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Case 3:15-cv-03682-CRB Document 8 Filed 10/14/15 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

On October 23, 2012, petitioner filed a second or successive § 2255

motion in the sentencing court, which was dismissed without prejudice to her

obtaining an order from the Fourth Circuit authorizing the filing of a second or

successive § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit denied authorization to file a

second or successive § 2255 motion.

On August 12, 2015, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under § 2241. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of

a person “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that intervening change in the law by the Supreme

Court’s opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010),

establishes that she is not a career offender for purposes of the federal career

offender enhancement and entitles her to be re-sentenced without the career

offender enhancement. Petitioner also claims that she is entitled to habeas relief

under § 2241 because § 2255 “is inadequate and ineffective.” Dkt. #1 (Pet.) at 5.

/ 

Case 3:15-cv-03682-CRB Document 8 Filed 10/14/15 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 3

It is well established that a “federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the

legality of confinement must generally rely on a § 2255 motion to do so.” 

Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012). But under the “savings

clause” or “escape hatch” of § 2255(e), a federal prisoner may seek relief under 

§ 2241 “if, and only if, the remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to

test the legality of his detention.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a federal prisoner may file a § 2241

petition under the escape hatch of § 2255(e) when the prisoner “(1) makes a

claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at

presenting that claim.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The circuit consequently held that “the purely legal argument that a petitioner

was wrongly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines is

not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence under the escape hatch.” Marrero,

682 F.3d at 1195. But it also left open whether to endorse any of the other

exceptions recognized in other circuits, including where the petitioner is factually

innocent of his prior convictions or argues that he was statutorily ineligible for

the sentence he received. See id.

Under the circumstances, petitioner’s claim that Carachuri-Rosendo

entitles her to be re-sentenced without the career offender enhancement states at

least an arguably cognizable claim for relief under § 2241 and merits an answer

from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)

(federal courts must construe pro se habeas petitions liberally).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, and all attachments thereto, upon respondent, respondent’s attorney, the

Case 3:15-cv-03682-CRB Document 8 Filed 10/14/15 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

United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, and the Attorney

General of the United States in Washington, D.C. The clerk also shall serve a

copy of this order upon petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file and serve upon petitioner, within sixty (60)

days of this order, an answer responding to the allegations in the petition and

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent

shall file with the answer a copy of all documents that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented in the petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, petitioner shall do so

by filing a traverse and serving it upon respondent within thirty (30) days of his/

her receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Oct. 13, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Strickland, N.15-3682.osc.wpd 

Case 3:15-cv-03682-CRB Document 8 Filed 10/14/15 Page 4 of 4