Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05219-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 In addition to Sheila Clark, the warden of the facility where petitioner is incarcerated,

petitioner has named one other respondent. The other respondent is DISMISSED. See Rumsfeld v.

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (holding only proper respondent to petition brought by federal

prisoner is petitioner’s “immediate custodian,” usually warden of facility where petitioner is held).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,

Petitioner,

 v.

SHEILA CLARK, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5219 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution Dublin and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 As petitioner is incarcerated within the Northern

District of California and her petition challenges the execution of her federal sentence, venue

is proper in this court. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989). She has

applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 1991, petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the United

States Virgin Islands and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2002, she was convicted in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California and sentenced to two

Case 3:06-cv-05219-MMC Document 4 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

A second problem with the petition is that the Ninth Circuit has found Booker, upon which

petitioner’s claims are based, announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does

not apply retroactively to cases on habeas review. See United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989)). 

3

The docket for the case resulting in petitioner’s 2002 conviction indicates she filed an

unsuccessful § 2255 motion in that case. The remedy under § 2255 will not be deemed inadequate

or ineffective, however, merely because a previous § 2255 motion was denied. See Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63. 

2

years in prison for escape from a federal prison, with such term to run consecutively to

petitioner’s prior sentence. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims the sentences arising out of her 1991 and 2002 convictions are

“illegally obtained” because they were imposed pursuant to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (“Guidelines”), which thereafter were found to be unconstitutional. Specifically,

in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held the

Guidelines, as written, violated the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 243-44, 248-49.

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court, and who wishes to collaterally

attack the validity of his conviction or sentence, must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set

aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; such motion must be filed in the

court in which the sentence was imposed. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982 (1988). A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal

sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991).2 Although an exception to the

general bar against using § 2241 to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence exists, that

exception is very narrow. See United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Specifically, a federal prisoner may seek such relief only if he can show the remedy available

under § 2255 is "'inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.'" See id.

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255).3 Here, petitioner has not shown, or even attempted to show, the

remedy available under § 2255 is either inadequate or ineffective for the purpose of testing

the legality of her sentences. 

Case 3:06-cv-05219-MMC Document 4 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in light of

petitioner’s lack of funds.

This order terminates Docket No. 3.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 22, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05219-MMC Document 4 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 3