Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00354/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00354-0/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 This information is derived from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE JEBURK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

D. SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00354 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2241

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

DISCUSSION

1

Petitioner is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary

located in Atwater, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Georgia entered in 1996. 

Petitioner states he appealed the conviction to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He

states the appeal was dismissed for lack of transcript. Petitioner then submitted a motion seeking

Case 1:07-cv-00354-AWI-LJO Document 5 Filed 04/20/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

reinstatement of his appeal to the Circuit Court instead of the District Court. The motion was

apparently dismissed.

Petitioner states he filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court in 2002. The motion was denied as untimely.

On March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his

petition, Petitioner vaguely claims his due process and equal protection rights were violated.

JURISDICTION

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his conviction

or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Smith, 719

F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997); Broussard v. Lippman,

643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. 

Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by

way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States,

929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616

F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

In contrast, a federal prisoner 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. Brown

v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990); 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 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir.

1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835

F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his sentence rather

than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to

file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner concedes

this fact. Petitioner apparently brings this petition as a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255, because

he has already sought relief by way of § 2255. However, a petition contending Petitioner's sentence

Case 1:07-cv-00354-AWI-LJO Document 5 Filed 04/20/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

is invalid is still a § 2255 petition regardless of what Petitioner calls the petition. See Brown, 610

F.2d at 677.

In rare situations, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief

under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective to

test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting §

2255). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that this exception is a very narrow one. Ivy v. Pontesso,

328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9 Cir.2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299; Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a

th

court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Tripati, 843

F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a §

2255 petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope,

229 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956). In Ivy, the Ninth Circuit held that § 2241 relief is available pursuant to

the “escape hatch” in § 2255 if the petitioner claims to be: (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, citing, Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9 Cir.2000) th

(internal citations omitted). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or

ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 

In the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner claims that § 2255 is inadequate and

ineffective. Petitioner claims he is foreclosed from raising the instant claims because he has already

filed a motion pursuant to § 2255. 

Nevertheless, Petitioner has had several procedural opportunities to challenge his sentence in

raising the instant claims. Petitioner does not state whether he attempted to raise these claims on

direct appeal, but it is clear he had the opportunity to do so. The appeal was dismissed because

Petitioner seemingly failed to submit transcripts. Petitioner also filed a motion to vacate the sentence

pursuant to § 2255, but this motion was dismissed as untimely. Thus, the fault for the dismissals lie

with Petitioner and he cannot claim he did not have an unobstructed procedural opportunity, because

Petitioner himself caused the obstructions. In addition, Petitioner does not claim to be factually

innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. It is clear, therefore, that Petitioner has not shown

that § 2255 provides an "inadequate or ineffective" remedy. The petition should be dismissed.

Case 1:07-cv-00354-AWI-LJO Document 5 Filed 04/20/07 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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall

be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00354-AWI-LJO Document 5 Filed 04/20/07 Page 4 of 4