Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01658/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01658-0/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 (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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner and Defendant,

CASE NO. 14cv1658 and 12cr847-

LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

v.

VICTOR VILLE HERLONG,

Respondent.

Petitioner and Defendant Roberto Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to one count

of being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, for

which he was sentenced to a term of 55 months’ imprisonment. After two unsuccessful

motions to vacate his sentence and one unsuccessful appeal (during which he was 1

represented by counsel), he filed this, his third motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking

to vacate his sentence. Although he filed it as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the

Central District of California, the judge assigned to that case correctly recognized that he 

was attacking his sentence in this case, and transferred it to this District. (See Docket no.

9 (unopposed motion to construe § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion, and to transfer it to this

/ / /

/ / /

The first motion was denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, because his 1

appeal was still pending.

- 1 - 14cv1658 and12cr847

Case 3:14-cv-01658-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/17/14 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

District) and 11 (order granting motion)). Here, it was assigned to the undersigned judge, 2

who presided over his guilty plea and sentenced him.

The earlier related cases are 12cr847-LAB-1, 12cv127-LAB, and 13cv3093-LAB,

Roberto Hernandez-Hernandez v. United States of America. Although the current petition

does not acknowledge any previous § 2255 motions or even identify the underlying case, an

examination of the petitions in these cases confirms they were all filed by the same

petitioner. The Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect that this is a § 2255 motion 3

filed in criminal case 12cr847.

For reasons set forth in the Court’s order of December 19, 2013 in case 13cv3093

and 12cr847, Hernandez’s petition has no merit. In addition, in spite of the fact that

Hernandez calls this a § 2241 petition, it is in fact a successive § 2255 motion. Because he

has not obtained certification from the Ninth Circuit to file it, as required under 28 U.S.C. §

2244, this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See United States v. Washington,

653 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9 Cir. 2011) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to th

consider claims presented in a § 2255 motion disguised as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion,

because the petitioner had not first obtained a certificate from the Court of Appeals

authorizing the district court to consider it).

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT WITHOUT LEAVE TOAMEND.

Hernandez may file another § 2255 motion only if he first obtains the required certificate from

/ / /

The petition, like most of Hernandez’s other filings, is not particularly clear, and 2

contains a good deal of contradictory information. For example, the caption says Hernandez

is in prison for attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle, and the body of the petition

says Hernandez was sentenced on September 16, 2012, nearly two months after his

sentencing date in this Court. But docket searches for the docket number listed in the

caption, or for criminal cases filed against Roberto Hernandez in California courts in the past

ten years returned no results. In addition, Hernandez is in federal, not state, prison, and

apparently has named the federal facility as the respondent. He also used a form indicating

he was seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (which would be

used by persons in custody pursuant to state court judgments). If Hernandez disagreed with

this construction of his pleading, he could and should have opposed the motion to transfer.

In the earlier petitions as well as this one, Hernandez gives his name as Hernandez 3

H. Roberto. But documents in the criminal case make clear his name is really Roberto

Hernandez-Hernandez.

- 2 - 14cv1658 and12cr847

Case 3:14-cv-01658-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/17/14 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

the Ninth Circuit, and any future § 2255 motions filed without the certificate will be summarily

dismissed. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1658 and12cr847

Case 3:14-cv-01658-LAB Document 15 Filed 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3