Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01897/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01897-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON BASHFORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

D. SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01897-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT BRIEF ADDRESSING

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE DOCUMENTS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, a petitioner 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. See, e.g., 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 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d

889, 893-894 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d476, 478-479 (3d Cir. 1991); United

States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-187 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672,

677 (9th Cir. 1980). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner’s custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 7 Filed 12/07/07 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

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those

1

brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2)

provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in such

proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.”

Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

In this case, Petitioner contends that he is actually innocent of violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1), based on the intervening United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United

States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995), which narrowly construed the term “uses” in § 924(c)(1)

as active use, not mere possession. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Further, Petitioner contends that a motion for

reconsideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective since his § 2255 motion has

already been denied in the sentencing court as untimely and since the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act does not provide an exception under § 2255 that is applicable under these

circumstances. (Id.). Accordingly, Petitioner contends that the only legal avenue available to him is

via the “savings” clause of § 2255, permitting the filing of a habeas corpus petition pursuant to §

2241 to challenge the conviction or sentence. (Id.). 

Based on the Court’s preliminary screening of the petition, it appears that Petitioner may be

correct in asserting that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective, and thus § 2241 may be the appropriate

legal avenue for Petitioner to proceed under these circumstances. Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d

1203 (D. Or. 1998); see Davis v. Crabtree, 10 F.Supp.2d 1136 (1998); Triestman v. United States,

124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997). Should that be the case, the Court would then have to decide whether

to transfer the case to the sentencing court—in this case, the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia—to consider the merits of the § 2241 petition. Conley, 14 F.Supp. at

1207-1208. In the briefing ordered below, Respondent is requested to address these issues to assist

the Court in determining whether it has jurisdiction to proceed to consider Petitioner’s claims under

§ 2241.

ORDERS

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court 1

HEREBY ORDERS: 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 7 Filed 12/07/07 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

Counsel for the “Institution” means private Counsel representing contracted facilities such as Taft Correctional 2

Institution, (Wackenhut Corrections Corporation), or California City Correctional Center (Corrections Corporation of

America). 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

1. Respondent SHALL FILE a Brief addressing the jurisdictional issues raised in this

order within (45) days of the date of service of this order. Respondent shall include

with the response any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the resolution

of the issues presented in this order. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. The Court recognizes that Counsel on behalf of the Government and/or the

Institution may wish to respond on separate issues raised in the Petition. However, 2

the Court will accept only one (1) “Brief.” Such Brief SHALL CONTAIN all

arguments with respect to all of the jurisdictional issues raised in this order, whether

formulated by Counsel for the Government or the Institution. In the Brief,

Respondent should specifically address the Court’s jurisdictional concerns regarding

whether § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective such that Petitioner should be allowed to

proceed under § 2241, and whether the Court should transfer the case to the Eastern

District of Virginia court for a decision on the merits of the habeas petition.

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a Notice of Appearance within TWENTY (20) days of the

date of service of this Order. The Notice SHALL indicate the name of the

individual(s) who will be representing the Government and/or the Institution. The

Notice is necessary to ensure that the appropriate counsel for Respondent is being

served by the Court. The submission of the Notice of Appearance will terminate

Court service on those listed in paragraph 4.

3. Petitioner may file a Reply brief within twenty (20) days from the date Respondent’s

Brief is filed.

4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve a copy of this Order along with a copy of the

Petition and all exhibits on the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern

District of California, an agent for the appropriate Correctional Institution if

applicable, and the United States Bureau of Prisons. 

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 7 Filed 12/07/07 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

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 7 Filed 12/07/07 Page 4 of 4