Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02752/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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 

11\1 NOV \ 9 rM 2: 39 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANTOS JIMENEZ-ARRIAGA, CASE NOS. 12-CV-2752 BEN 

12-CR-1282 BEN-l 

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER DENYING 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION 

Res ondent. 

Petitioner Santos Jimenez-Arriaga moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a reduction in his 

sentence based on his alien status and challenges Bureau ofPrisons , policies which preclude him from 

participating in certain pre-release programs. Both because he waived the right to challenge his 

sentence and because his Equal Protection argument lacks merit, the Court DENIES the motion. 

DISCUSSION 

I. WAIVER 

The Ninth Circuit recognizes strong public policy considerations justifying the enforcement 

of a defendant's waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack a judgment. United States v. 

Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir. 1990). Waivers play an important role in the plea 

bargaining process and help ensure finality. Id. at 322. Generally, courts enforce a defendant's waiver 

ofhis right to appeal, as long as the waiver was "knowingly and voluntarily made" and "encompasses 

the defendant's right to appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal." United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 

956,958 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1998)), 

- 1 - 12cv2752/12cr1282 

Case 3:12-cv-02752-BEN Document 2 Filed 11/19/12 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 

Petitioner waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. Plea 

Agreement (Docket No. 24) ~ XI. The plea agreement states, "defendant waives, to the full extent of 

the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence." Id Petitioner's 

knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to collaterally attack his sentence requires denial of his 

§ 2255 motion. 

II. EQUAL PROTECTION 

Petitioner filed the present motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but his Equal Protection challenge 

to the constitutionality of certain Bureau of Prisons' policies is better construed as a challenge to the 

manner in which his sentence is being executed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 

204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (instructing that petitions challenging the "manner, 

location or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 "); see also 

Montano-Figuero v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1998) (illustrating that challenges to Bureau 

ofPrisons' policies are challenges to the execution of an inmate's sentence). Construing his motion 

liberally, the Court considers Petitioner's Equal Protection claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Zichko 

v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting a court's "duty to construe pro se pleadings 

liberally"). 

Petitioner claims that Bureau ofPrisons' policies that prevent him from participating in certain 

programs due to his alien status violate his right to Equal Protection. However, Bureau of Prisons 

policies preventing deportable aliens from participating in certain programs survive constitutional 

challenge. Cf McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding BOP exclusion of 

prisoners with detainers, including INS detainers, from community-based program based on 

petitioners' alien status did not violate Equal Protection). 

Additionally, a number of district courts have also found that policies preventing alien 

prisoners from participating in certain pre-release programs are also justified because the purpose of 

the program -helping prisoners reenter the community after serving their sentence - is not advanced 

in the case of prisoners who will be deported upon release. See Lizarraga-Lopez v. United States, 89 

F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1169-70 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (upholding deportable alien's ineligibility for community 

confinement); United States v. Rodas-Jacome, No. 06-CV-1481, 2007 WL 1231630, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

- 2- I2cv2752/12cr1282 

Case 3:12-cv-02752-BEN Document 2 Filed 11/19/12 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 

Apr. 24, 2007) (upholding restrictions for alien prisoners to obtain "good time" credits in rehabilitation 

programs), Because deportable alien prisoners pose a greater flight risk and the public policy 

justifications for pre-release programs are inapplicable, the challenged policies survive constitutional 

scrutiny and Petitioner's Equal Protection claim fails. The Court also denies relief under § 2241. 

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not debatable among 

jurists ofreason and there are no questions adequate to deserve encouragement. 

CONCLUSION 

Petitioner's motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall close case number 12-CV-2752 BEN. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

It. 

DATED: Novembe/£ 2012 

- 3 - 12cv2752/12crl282 

Case 3:12-cv-02752-BEN Document 2 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 3