Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01372/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01372-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIAS ECHEVERRIA-MEDEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1372 EFB P

vs.

RICHARD B. IVES,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the legality of his conviction for money laundering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, which was imposed by the United States District Court for the

Western District of North Carolina. Petitioner alleges that, under a U.S. Supreme Court decision

handed down after his sentencing, his conduct does not fall within the statute’s prohibitions. 

Petitioner is currently confined in the federal prison in Herlong, California. 

Generally, a federal habeas petition challenging the legality of the sentence, rather than

the manner, location, or conditions of its execution, are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

in the court in which petitioner was sentenced (the “sentencing court”) rather than under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 in the court for the geographic territory encompassing the prison in which the

petitioner is confined (the “custodial court”). Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th

Case 2:09-cv-01372-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/22/10 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

2

Cir. 2000). This general rule has one exception – under the savings clause of § 2255, a federal

prisoner may challenge the legality of his sentence under § 2241 in the custodial court where his

remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id.; 28

U.S.C. § 2255(e). 

Petitioner challenges the legality of his sentence, which was imposed by the United

States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Thus, the instant petition should

be heard by that court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, absent a showing that such a motion is inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of the sentence.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, within 30 days from the date of this order,

petitioner show case why the petition should not be transferred to the United States District

Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Dated: June 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01372-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2