Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01338/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01338-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS C. SHRADER,

Petitioner,

v.

B.W. PLUMLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 16)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”). On April 5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings 

and Recommendation (“F&Rs”) that recommended the petition be denied. ECF No. 16. On April 

20, 2018, Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&Rs. ECF No. 17.

This Court conducted a de novo review and adopted the F&Rs on May 10, 2018, ECF No. 

19; however, in doing so, the Court’s order erroneously incorporated language relevant to a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 17, 

2018, Petitioner filed notice of an appeal, ECF No. 21, and on September 23, 2019, the Ninth 

Circuit filed a Memorandum Decision vacating this Court’s judgment and order, and remanding

the matter for this Court “to conduct a de novo review of the findings and recommendations.” 

Shrader v. Plumley, 778 F. App’x 460 (9th Cir. 2019). The Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued on 

Case 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 5
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

November 15, 2019. ECF No. 28.

Petitioner has litigated extensively his current incarceration, including several petitions for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, and 2255, which often raise similar and 

overlapping issues to the current petition. As another court noted:

In addition to the direct appeal of his conviction, Petitioner filed a 

§ 2255 motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District 

of West Virginia. See Schrader v. United States, 2016 WL 299036 

(S.D. W. Va. January 25, 2016) (No. 1:13–cv–

33098), dismissed, 668 Fed. Appx. 494 (Mem.) (4th Cir. 

2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 844044 (April 3, 2017) (No. 16–

8151). Schrader v. United States, 2013 WL 4520013 (S.D. W. Va. 

Aug. 27, 2013) (No. 1:13–cv–09386). A second § 2255 motion,

addressing the possible application to Petitioner’s sentence 

of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), is presently 

pending in West Virginia. Schrader v. United States (S.D. W. Va. 

No. 1:16–cv–05559).

Petitioner has filed at least five previous § 2241 petitions, 

including Schrader v. Ives (C.D. Cal. 2:13–cv–01573–PSG–DTB), 

presenting multiple grounds for relief including the sentencing 

claim, and four petitions alleging the substantially same sentencing 

claim as the above captioned petition: Shrader v. Zuniga, 2015 WL 

1567201 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2015) (No. 1:15–cv–00439–MJS 

HC); Shrader v. Gill, 2014 WL 7336218 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) 

(No. 1:14–cv–01269–LJO–MJS HC); Schrader v. West Virginia

(S.D. W. Va. No. 1:14–cv–25344); and Schrader v. United 

States (S.D. W. Va. No. 1:13–cv–09386). Petitioner also filed a 

state habeas petition seeking to set aside his 1975 convictions as 

error. Shrader v. West Virginia (W. Va. May 17, 2013) (No. 12–

0982) (www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/memodecisions/spring2013/12–0982memo.pdf (accessed May 24, 

2017)).

Shrader v. Watson, No. 1:17-cv-00685-DAD-SKO HC, 2017 WL 2546818, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 

12, 2017) (adopted by court order dated Aug. 24, 2017, ECF No. 13), appeal dismissed, 741 F. 

App’x 481 (Mem.) (9th Cir. 2018). This Court would add the current petition to the list of habeas 

corpus petitions above, plus the following two petitions: Shrader v. Watson, No. 1:17-cv-00685-

DAD-SKO HC, 2017 WL 2546818; Shrader v. Young, No. 1:19-cv-00644-JLT (HC), 2019 WL 

2164636 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2019), appeal filed.

Case 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner’s filings have at times been recast or, where appropriate, denied by the reviewing 

courts after determination that the statutory basis for Petitioner’s requested relief was unavailable,

given the nature of the claims. Here, to the extent Petitioner challenges the calculation of his release 

date based on the terms of his incarceration and supervised release, the F&Rs issued by the 

magistrate judge appropriately analyzed Petitioner’s claim as one arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

and recommended dismissal of the claim. To the extent Petitioner challenges the inherent validity

of the sentence imposed by the trial court, the F&Rs appropriately note relief is not available to 

Petitioner through his § 2241 petition as he has not presented facts or argument to support analysis 

under the “savings clause” or “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Alaimalo v. United States, 

636 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011), opinion amended and superseded, 645 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 

2011).

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in this case, and in accordance with the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a renewed de novo examination of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file again, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court 

concludes that the Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis, 

and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendation. 

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to 

issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

Case 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals 

from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; 

or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only 

if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate 

which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

28 U.S.C. § 2253.

If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 

petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 

demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 

his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be denied debatable or wrong, 

or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not 

made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on April 5, 2018, ECF No. 16, are ADOPTED 

IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 

Case 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case; and

4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP Document 29 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 5