Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02213/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

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

CARLOS U. LOBO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. No. 1)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Carlos U. Lobo’s (“Lobo”) petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter is fully briefed. 

(Doc. Nos. 13, 14.) After a thorough review of the papers and applicable law, the Court 

DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

BACKGROUND

Lobo pled guilty and was convicted of Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony, 

specifically rape, in 2008. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Lobo was sentenced to six years of 

imprisonment, which was suspended, and five years of probation. (Id.) Lobo was then 

removed from the United States to Honduras on September 4, 2008. (Id.) 

Thereafter, on October 30, 2008, Lobo was arrested at a checkpoint after confirming 

that he was not a United States citizen. (Id.) As a result, in November of the same year, a 

jury indicted Lobo with illegal re-entry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §

Case 3:16-cv-02213-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

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

1326(a) and (b). (Id.) On January 4, 2010, Lobo was sentenced to seventy months of 

imprisonment, followed by a term of three years of supervised release. (Id.)

On January 12, 2011, Lobo filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which was denied 

with his conviction, judgment, and sentence affirmed. (Id.) Lobo then filed a motion to 

vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance from his trial 

and appellate counsel. (Id.) On February 29, 2012, the district court denied this motion. 

(Id. at 2–3.) Thereafter in 2015, Lobo sought to file a second § 2255 motion alleging his 

actual innocence. (Id. at 3.) This application was denied on February 26, 2016. (Id.) The 

instant motion was filed on August 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

A federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement must generally 

rely on a § 2255 motion to do so. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 

2006) (“The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means 

by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on 

the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241.”) (citation omitted). There is, however, an exception to that general rule. Generally, 

a federal habeas prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may not petition for relief 

under § 2241 “unless it appears that the § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test 

the legality of his detention.” Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999). This 

exception is titled the “escape hatch” of § 2255. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897. 

DISCUSSION

Lobo alleges that he can show that he is actually innocent of his underlying 

conviction in three ways: (1) ineffective assistance of his counsel; (2) a doctor’s report; (3) 

counsel’s failure to attack the credibility of the victim; and (4) that the prosecutor withheld 

evidence from the court.1(Doc. No. 1 at 8–13.) In opposition, the United States argues that 

 

1 The Court notes that Lobo’s response to the United States’ return radically shifts gears 

and attempts to argue that the district court erroneously applied the sixteen level 

Case 3:16-cv-02213-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

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

Lobo is not entitled to a remedy under § 2241 and thus his claims should be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13 at 3–4.) It also claims that Lobo cannot establish actual 

innocence or collaterally attack his underlying state conviction and has failed to 

demonstrate that he has been obstructed from bringing his claims. (Id. at 4–9.)

A prisoner may file a § 2241 petition under the escape hatch when the prisoner “(1) 

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

presenting that claim.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation 

omitted). “To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that in light of all the 

evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” 

Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Actual innocence means “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” (Id.) 

Presently, even construing Lobo’s pro se filing liberally, there are no claims that 

demonstrate that he is factually innocent of his crimes of conviction. First, as to Plaintiff’s 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court reiterates that these arguments are 

procedural claims of innocence and not a factual claim of actual innocence. See Schlup v. 

Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314 (1995). 

As to Lobo’s claim of innocence being supported by a professional diagnosis, the 

Court disagrees. The doctor’s report states in pertinent part that Lobo “does not appear to 

suffer from a clearly diagnosable psychiatric disorder of either psychotic or major neurotic

proportion.” (Doc. No. 1 at 30.) Moreover, the report describes Lobo as social, an open 

communicator, and friendly. (Id. at 32.) However, the report also states that it is “of course, 

not possible to predict future behavior with certainty. Especially, one cannot predict repeat 

 

enhancement for a crime of violence to his offense calculation. (See generally Doc. No. 

14.) The Court finds these extraneous arguments improperly pled as they are missing from 

Lobo’s original Petition. See Davenport v. Wendy’s Co., No. 2:14-cv-00931 JAM DAD, 

2014 WL 3735611, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2014) (“The Court does not consider

Plaintiff’s argument—made for the first time in its reply—that Defendant’s removal was 

untimely. It is well-established that a party may not raise a new argument in its reply 

brief.”).

Case 3:16-cv-02213-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

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

sexual offense behavior in individual offenders with any degree of certainty.” (Id. at 33.) 

It is undisputable that the doctor’s report provided by Lobo fails to affirm or deny his guilt 

or innocence in his underlying conviction. Instead, the report is simply an analysis of 

Lobo’s personality traits resulting in a recommendation from the doctor. This in and of 

itself does not demonstrate Lobo’s “actual innocence.” 

Next, turning to Lobo’s argument that his attorney failed to attack the credibility of 

the victim, this claim is similarly insufficient. Specifically, Lobo attaches the victim’s DUI 

arrest report from May 24, 2007. (Id. at 50–56.) Unfortunately, the Court is unsure as to 

how the victim’s DUI report is relevant to determining his innocence of the crime charged 

or to the victim’s truthfulness during trial. 

Finally, Lobo argues that the prosecutor in his state court conviction withheld 

evidence that would have had a direct impact on his proceedings. (Id. at 12.) To support 

this argument, Lobo provides the Court with only a one page transcript. (Id. at 48.) From 

what the Court can discern, this one page deals with the motivations for settling his case. 

(Id.) The prosecutor on the record states that “Your Honor, this was a case which was rather 

complicated due to the fact that there was an officer involved shooting which occurred as 

a result because there were so many witnesses that were interviewed both for the 

underlying case and the officer involved shooting.” (Id.) Again, the Court is at a loss as to 

how this evidence demonstrates that it is “more likely than not that no reasonable juror 

would have convicted him[,]” Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir. 2012), or that 

his case would have turned out differently had this information been suppressed. 

In sum, Lobo has not demonstrated that he is factually innocent of his prior 

convictions. Moreover, Lobo’s purely legal arguments in his Traverse brief are not 

“cognizable as a claim of actual innocence under the escape hatch.” Marrero, 682 F.3d at 

1195. Thus, as Lobo has failed to meet the escape hatch criteria, he cannot bring his claims 

in a § 2241 petition. 

Case 3:16-cv-02213-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16-cv-2213-AJB-RBB

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

CONCLUSION2

As delineated above, the Court DENIES Lobo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 

and DISMISSES the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2018

 

2

In so much that Lobo’s petition could be characterized as a § 2241 petition “disguised” 

as a § 2255 petition, the Court DENIES the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See 

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly 

brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition, the petitioner cannot appeal 

from the denial of that petition without a [certificate of appealability].”). Presently, the 

Court does not find that reasonable jurists could debate whether the motion should have 

been resolved differently or that the issues presented deserve further encouragement. See 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

Case 3:16-cv-02213-AJB-RBB Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5