Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01341/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01341-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAGDALENO MEDINA, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-01341-GSA-HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

(ECF No. 14)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for clarification. (ECF No. 14). 

Petitioner seeks to clarify the Court’s September 9, 2015 order directing Respondent to file a 

response. (ECF No. 6). Petitioner takes issue with the order’s statement that “Petitioner alleges 

that he is innocent of violating 18 U.S.C. 924 § (e)” based on Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. 

––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015). Petitioner states that he is not actually alleging that he is 

innocent of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), but that he “seeks to access 2241 under the 

(distinguishable) contention that supervening Supreme Court authority establishes that he stands 

‘statutorily ineligible’ for treatment under 924(e); a constitutional violation attaches the error; 

and 2255 proves inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention in this rare 

circumstance.” As Petitioner has clarified his claims in his petition, the Court will grant his 

Case 1:15-cv-01341-DAD-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 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

2

request for clarification. At this time, the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of 

Petitioner’s claims or whether § 2241 is the appropriate legal avenue for Petitioner to proceed 

with under these circumstances. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for clarification is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01341-DAD-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 2