Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01730/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01730-1/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 (federal)

---

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 06CV1730

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARIF DURRANI,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV1730-LAB (JMA)

CASE STATUS AND NOTICE

vs. ORDER

S.A. HOLENCIK,

Respondent.

Petitioner Arif Durrani ("Durrani"), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition For Writ of

Habeas Corpus ("Petition") purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case was

originally assigned to Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez. Judge Gonzalez determined the

petition actually seeks relief appropriately pursued under 28, U.S.C. § 2255, and that such

relief should be sought from the sentencing judge. She accordingly instructed the Clerk of

Court to transfer the case to the undersigned District Judge in an Order entered

August 31, 2006. On September 6, 2006, this court considered Durrani's Petition, found he

merely restates and revisits issues the court previously decided, and sua sponte denied the

Petition and dismissed the case. 

Durrani filed a Notice Of Appeal on September 25, 2006, without first seeking a

certificate of appealability. By Order filed November 2, 2006, the Ninth Circuit stated "this

appeal . . . appears to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255" and "remanded to the district court for

the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability" (emphasis added).

Durrani filed a Response to that Order in the Ninth Circuit, disputing that his habeas petition

Case 3:06-cv-01730-LAB-JMA Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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 1

 The government has filed a Memorandum Re Case Status Upon Remand, attaching as

its Exhibit 1 Durrani's "response" to the Ninth Circuit's Order. 

2 06CV1730

filed under Section 2241 seeking immediate release is actually a Section 2255 motion

challenging his conviction or sentence.1 He states he "will not accept recharacterization" of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

The government has filed a Memorandum Re Case Status Upon Remand in

consideration of Durrani's insistence he may pursue Section 2241 habeas relief on the facts

of this case, despite the gravamen of his challenges arising from his conviction and sentence

and the construction of his challenges by two courts as actually arising under Section 2255.

The government emphasizes Durrani is confined by court Order following a jury trial, so his

petition seeking release from custody "is squarely within the scope of § 2255."

The court has considered Durrani's arguments and rejects his characterization of the

relief and grounds for relief in his circumstances as other than a Section 2255 motion, in light

of the procedural posture of this case and the Ninth Circuit's instructions that this court issue

or deny a certificate of appealability on that basis. Before the court can recharacterize the

pro se filing as a first Section 2255 motion, however, it is obligated to provide the following

explanation, notice, and admonitions: 

In such circumstances the district court must notify the pro se

litigant that it intends to recharacterize the pleading, warn the

litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent

§ 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on “second or

successive” motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity

to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all

the § 2255 claims he believes he has. If the court fails to do so,

the motion cannot be considered to have become a § 2255

motion for purposes of applying to later motions the law's

“second or successive” restrictions. § 2255, ¶ 8.

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003) (emphasis added).

The court hereby notifies Durrani of its intent to construe and process his petition as

a Section 2255 motion rather than a Section 2241 Petition. The court warns Durrani of the

consequences of that treatment: 

Under a longstanding practice, a court sometimes treats

as a request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a motion

that a pro se federal prisoner has labeled differently. Such

Case 3:06-cv-01730-LAB-JMA Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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 06CV1730

recharacterization can have serious consequences for the

prisoner, for it subjects any subsequent motion under § 2255

to the restrictive conditions that federal law imposes upon

a “second or successive” (but not upon a first) federal

habeas motion. § 2255, ¶ 8. 

Castro, 540 U.S. at 377 (emphasis added).

Before proceeding to implement the Ninth Circuit's remand instructions, however, the

court will provide Durrani "with an opportunity to withdraw, or to amend" the filing (Castro,

540 U.S. at 377, 382), in consideration of the potential consequences, by setting a deadline

of December 29, 2006 for him to file a request to withdraw his current petition, or to file an

Amended Petition. If he neither withdraws nor amends his petition by that deadline, the

court will implement the Ninth Circuit's instructions from its remand Order, construing the

habeas petition Durrani filed on August 24, 2006 as a Section 2255 Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2006

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01730-LAB-JMA Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 3