Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00118-0/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 This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY J. DILLON, III, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

D. SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00118 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary

located in Atwater, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania entered on November 19, 1993, following his conviction by jury

trial of conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846,

and 924(c). See Petition at 2. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate prison term of 322 months.

Id.

Petitioner appealed the conviction to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/01/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

denied on June 26, 1996. Id. 

On January 23, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner claims he was sentenced in violation of the Constitution, because the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals has determined 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(2) to be unconstitutional in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

JURISDICTION

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. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Smith, 719

F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997); Broussard v. Lippman,

643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. 

Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by

way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States,

929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616

F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

In contrast, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Brown

v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990); Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th

Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of

Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir.

1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835

F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his sentence rather

than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to

file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner states he has

not raised his challenges in any federal action; he states he has only sought administrative review

within the institution. Thus, § 2255 relief remains available to Petitioner. 

In rare situations, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/01/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective to

test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting §

2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an inadequate or

ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Ivy v.

Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9 Cir.2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299; Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 th

(1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); 

Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not

render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt

v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956). The Ninth Circuit has stated that § 2255 provides an

"inadequate or ineffective" remedy (and thus that the petitioner may proceed under § 2241) when the

petitioner claims to be: (1) factually innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted; and, (2)

has never had an "unobstructed procedural shot" at presenting this claim. Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1059-60,

citing, Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9 Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). The burden th

is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States,

315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 

In the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner does not claim § 2255 to be inadequate

and ineffective. And since § 2255 relief remains available to Petitioner, he still has a procedural

opportunity to challenge his sentence based on the Booker decision. Therefore, the petition should be

dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a

copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/01/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 4