Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00397/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00397-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

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 

JONATHAN LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

ORDER CONSTRUING PLEADING 

AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS; 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2] 

SUMMARILY DISMISSING 

PETITION 

[Doc. No. 1] 

 Plaintiff Jonathan Lopez, proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading styled as a motion 

to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging a 

sentence imposed on April 15, 2014 by the United States Marine Corps in a general 

court-martial proceeding. See Doc. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

construes Lopez’s pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:18-cv-00397-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

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

2241, GRANTS Lopez’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and 

summarily DISMISSES his petition. 

DISCUSSION

Lopez was convicted of rape and assault consummated by a battery, in violation of 

Articles 120 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920 and 928. See 

United States v. Lopez, No. NMCCA 201400289, 2016 CCA LEXIS 113, at *1 (N-M Ct. 

Crim. App. Feb. 29, 2016). Lopez was sentenced to a term of seven years’ confinement, 

a reduction in pay grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable 

discharge. Id. According to Lopez’s pleading, he is currently confined at the Naval 

Consolidated Brig at Marine Corps Air Station (“MCAS”) Miramar, San Diego, 

California.1

 Lopez has instituted the current proceeding challenging his conviction and 

sentence, alleging: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, 

particularly in light of the complaining witness’s contradictory statements and trial 

testimony; (2) ineffective assistance of defense trial counsel; (4) legal error based on the 

exclusion of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 412; and (5) failure to receive a 

fair trial and partial clemency due to political pressure and unlawful command influence. 

See Doc. No. 1. 

 Lopez has styled his pleading as a motion to vacate pursuant to Title 28, United 

States Code, section 2255. In pertinent part, the statute provides: 

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress 

claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was 

imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that 

the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, . . . or is otherwise 

subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence 

to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 

                                               

1

 The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), which states that 

“[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the . . . district courts . . . within their respective 

jurisdictions.” 

Case 3:18-cv-00397-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

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

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Because this Court did not impose the challenged 

sentence, Lopez may not seek relief in this Court under Section 2255. As one circuit 

court has explained: 

General courts-martial are ad hoc proceedings which dissolve after the 

purpose for which they were convened has been resolved. As a result, there 

is not a sentencing court in which a military prisoner may bring a § 2255 

motion. Moreover, neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the 

Manual for Courts-Martial provides for collateral review within the military 

courts. 

Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 

However, “military prisoners seeking to collaterally attack their convictions may 

do so” by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Section 2241. Ehlers v. 

United States, No. 11cv882 BTM (POR), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115428, at *3-4 (S.D. 

Cal. Oct. 6, 2011) (citing Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 588 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(“[R]esort to § 2241 is the norm rather than the exception when a military prisoner seeks 

to challenge the results of his [court-martial].”); Witham, supra, 355 F.3d at 505 (same)). 

As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s pleading as a habeas petition brought pursuant to 

Section 2241. 

Rather than pay the required $5.00 filing fee to institute this action, Lopez seeks 

leave of Court to proceed IFP. See Doc. No. 2. As such, he must supply “the affidavit 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a certificate from the warden or other appropriate 

officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the 

petitioner has in any account in the institution.” See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.2

 

Lopez has not provided the required certificate. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial 

efficiency, the Court GRANTS Lopez’s request to proceed IFP based on his sworn 

                                               

2

 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 

at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 3:18-cv-00397-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

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

statement that he has been unable to procure a copy of the certificate, and is unable to pay 

the filing fee required to initiate this action. 

Having determined that Lopez may proceed IFP, the Court must preliminarily 

review his petition. “If it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Here, Lopez’s petition is subject to summary dismissal on several grounds. First, 

Lopez has sued the United States government. However, the proper respondent to a 

petition brought under Section 2241 is the person who has custody of the petitioner. 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and 2243). This 

is generally the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held – in this case, it 

would presumably be the commanding officer of the Brig at MCAS Miramar. Id. at 435. 

While the Court would ordinarily permit amendment or substitution of the proper 

respondent, the petition is plainly subject to dismissal on substantive grounds. Although 

the Court generally has jurisdiction to review a petition challenging a military conviction, 

the scope of review of is very narrow. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 139 (1953). 

As relevant here, the Court’s review is limited to only those claims raised in the military 

courts, but not given “full and fair consideration” by those courts. Id. at 142; see also 

Broussard v. Patton, 466 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that “habeas corpus 

proceedings involving military convictions are limited to determining whether the courtmartial had jurisdiction of the person accused and the offense charged and whether it 

acted within its lawful powers.”); Davis v. Marsh, 876 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(“Military prisoners must exhaust military remedies before seeking relief in federal 

court.”). 

Lopez indicates in his petition that he has raised all of his claims in the military 

courts, either on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. On direct appeal to the 

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Lopez raised “three 

assignments of error (AOE): (1) That the military judge erred in excluding evidence 

Case 3:18-cv-00397-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

18cv397-MMA (BGS) 

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

under Military Rule of Evidence 412, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 

ed.); (2) That the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his convictions; 

and (3) That [his] trial defense counsel were ineffective.” Lopez, supra, 2016 CCA 

LEXIS 113, at *2-3. In addition, the issue of the complaining witness’s credibility was 

subsumed within the first assignment of error. Thus, the appellate court considered four 

of the five claims Lopez raises in his petition, and concluded “that the findings and the 

sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the appellant occurred.” Id. On collateral review, this Court “may 

not retry the facts or reevaluate the evidence.” Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 203 

(5th Cir. 1975). Lopez’s additional claim, regarding his purported failure to receive a fair 

trial and partial clemency due to political pressure and unlawful command influence, is 

not reviewable by this Court. Lopez concedes he did not raise the claim on direct appeal, 

and to the extent he may be currently pursuing post-conviction relief on this issue in the 

military courts, the claim is unexhausted. Davis, supra, 876 F.2d at 1449. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES Lopez’s petition for 

writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave to amend. See Jarvis v. 

Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (petition for habeas corpus may be dismissed 

without leave to amend if “it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were 

such leave granted.”). The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and 

close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 27, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00397-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5