Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01490/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01490-2/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

CUTBERTO HARO RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 4, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition should have been filed as a motion for reconsideration in the trial court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 4). The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of

that order. On December 27, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation. (Doc. 5). 

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. As explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, a federal prisoner authorized

to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if he can show

section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” United States v. Pirro,

104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). This is a very narrow exception. Ivy v.

Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003). While the Ninth Circuit has provided little guidance

on what constitutes “inadequate and ineffective,” it appears section 2255 provides an “inadequate or

ineffective” remedy, and thus that the petitioner may proceed under § 2241, if the petitioner is (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; Lorentsen v.

Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2000).

In this section 2241 petition, Petitioner contends that his sentence was illegally enhanced

pursuant to the federal sentencing guidelines. In his objections, Petitioner argues that section 2255 is

ineffective to protect his rights because Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) were decided after Petitioner had filed his one petition

pursuant to section 2255. This argument fails because Petitioner is not alleging he is actually

innocent. See Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 954. Regardless, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he

seeks. Apprendi, Booker, and related cases cannot assist Petitioner because his conviction was final

before these cases were decided, and these cases may not be applied retroactive. See Schriro v.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004) (holding that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) is

procedural and does not apply retroactively to convictions that are final); Harris v. United States, 536

U.S. 545, 581 (2002) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (stating that "[n]o Court of Appeals, let alone this

Court, has held that Apprendi has retroactive effect”); United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9th

Cir.2005) (holding Booker is not retroactive); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.2005)

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 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

3

(finding Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) is not retroactive); United States v.

Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 665-66, 671 (9th Cir.2002) (holding Apprendi does not apply

retroactively to cases on collateral review). Thus, even if this court were to find Petitioner's claims

could be addressed in a petition brought pursuant to section 2241, Petitioner would not be entitled to

the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued December 4, 2007 (Doc. 4), is ADOPTED

IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close

the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01490-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3