Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00641/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00641-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMUNDO PARDO RUBI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY WRIGLEY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS AND DENY PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DENY ALL

PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docs. 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, & 19)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on April 27, 2007. (Doc. 1). The petition

alleges that on February 13, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced for convictions for mail fraud, wire

fraud, and conspiracy to launder money. (Doc. 1, p. 42). In addition to his sentence, the length

of which Petitioner never specifies, the trial court ordered Petitioner to pay restitution in the

amount of $12,483,000. (Id.). 

Apart from these scant facts, the Court is able to glean little else from the instant petition,

a 107-page tome that is surprisingly opaque considering the abundant extraneous information and

legion legal authority contained therein. At various points, Petitioner indicates that he is a citizen

of the “California Republic” and not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. (E.g., Doc. 1, p. 65). 

Indeed, Petitioner dedicates several pages to an explanation of why the United States District

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 7
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

It is beyond dispute that the United States District Court has original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of 1

the States, over all offenses against the laws of the United States, including those in the United States Code. 18

U.S.C. § 3231. In U.S. v. Tuuri, 26 F.3d 135 (9 Cir. 1994), 1994 WL 242125, *1, the Ninth Circuit rejected as th

frivolous a defendant’s claim that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to require him to produce tax documents

because he was not a citizen of the United States but rather a citizen only of the “California Republic.” Other federal

courts, considering similar claims of lack of jurisdiction regarding citizens of various “sovereign” states, have

reached identical conclusions. E.g., U.S. v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448 (9 Cir. 1993)(in tax evasion case, defendants’ th

contention that, as citizens of the “Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii,” they were not subject to federal court’s

jurisdiction was without merit); U.S. v. Rhoiney, 2002 WL 31987473, *3 (D.Kan Dec. 17, 2002) (defendant’s claim

that the court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him for narcotics offenses because he is a resident of the “sovereign”

State of Kansas was frivolous); U.S. v. George, 127 F.3d 1107, 1997 WL 669900, *1 (9 Cir. Oct. 27, th

1997)(defendant’s claim of lack of jurisdiction to prosecute him for narcotics offenses because he is a citizen of the

“Sovereign State of Oregon” was frivolous); U.S. v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 112 (5 Cir. 1986)(in tax evasion case, th

defendant’s claim of “special status” as citizen of Texas such that he was not subject to federal laws had “no legal

merit”). 

2

Court lacks jurisdiction over criminal cases. (Doc. 1, pp. 16-19). 1

In the portion of the petition labeled “Why Respondent’s Restraint of the Petitioner is

Illegal,” Petitioner lists three grounds: (1) the prosecution failed to disclose “the true nature and

cause of action against the Petitioner,” including disclosure of the parties in interest, venue, and

jurisdiction of the federal court to prosecute him; (2) this Court is required by law to force the

disclosure of said information to Petitioner; and (3) Petitioner is incarcerated as a result of

“unlawful process, misapplication of law and civil rights” and was the victim of vicious

prosecution. (Doc. 1, pp. 37-38). At other points in the petition, however, Petitioner alleges that

he was abducted from the Phillippines and brought to the United States for prosecution

unlawfully (id. at p. 55), the trial judge misapplied the money laundering statute (id. at p. 59), the

trial court illegally ordered restitution (id. at p. 61), the federal court’s lack jurisdiction (id. at

p. 64), and the judgment is void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction (id. at p. 65). 

At another juncture, Petitioner apparently contends that he is factually innocent of the charges for

which he was convicted. (Id. at Attachment, p. 15). 

While it is not entirely clear to the Court whether Petitioner actually intends to assert all

or only some of these various claims as a basis for granting relief in these proceedings, the

common theme among all of these claims is that Petitioner clearly challenges the fact of his

conviction and sentence in each and every one. As indicated more fully below, the Court

determines that Petitioner is in fact challenging his conviction, and therefore these claims should

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 7
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

have been brought in the sentencing court as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, the

Court will recommend that the instant petition be dismissed and that all pending motions be

denied as moot.

REVIEW OF CLAIMS

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition

“[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition...that the petition is not entitled to relief.” 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. Under § 2243, it is the duty of the Court to screen

out frivolous applications and to eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by

ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6 Cir. 1970); see Advisory th

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or

after an answer to the petition has been filed. 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v.

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568 (1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9

th

Cir. 1990). The petitioner shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the

grounds specified and shall state the relief requested. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. A petition may be dismissed if the factual allegations are so palpably incredible or

so patently frivolous or false as to warrant summary dismissal. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.

63, 78, 97 S.Ct. 1621(1977).

DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claims Must Be Raised In A Motion Pursuant To § 2255.

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 (9 Cir.1988); Thompson v. th

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8 Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3 Cir. 1997); th rd

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing th

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 7
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

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 (9 Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at

th

1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5 Cir.1980). th

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. 

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, th

177 (5 Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2 Cir. 1991); United th nd

States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-994 (6 Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478- th

479 (3 Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-187 (8 Cir. 1987); Brown v. rd th

United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9 Cir. 1980). th

Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity and constitutionality of his conviction

rather than an error in the administration or execution of his sentence. Although the Court is not

able to determine with precision which of the many claims scattered throughout the petition are

the definitive claims Petitioner wishes to raise in this Court, the Court is able to determine that

all of those claims raised in the instant petition have the common goal of challenging the original

conviction and sentence for which Petitioner is currently confined. Therefore, the appropriate

procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. 

Although Petitioner has indicated that his petition is pursuant to § 2241, a petition contending

Petitioner's sentence 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). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an

inadequate or ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow

exception. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9 Cir.2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299; Aronson th

v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 7
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

A motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where petitioner 2

was originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner does not expressly state the court in which he was convicted and

sentenced. However, based upon other documents filed by Petitioner, and from the facts alleged in the instant

petition, it does appear that Petitioner was convicted in San Diego, California, which is in the Southern District of

California. (Doc. 13, p. 4). Thus, that court would be the proper venue for filing a motion pursuant to § 2255.

Petitioner appears to recognize that he should have filed his case in the Southern District of California 3

because he strenuously contends that § 2241(d) expressly permits him to file in this Court since California is a state

with multiple federal districts. (Doc. 1, pp. 43-44). However, § 2241(d) does not support Petitioner’s contention

since that statute is directed toward petitioners who file habeas corpus petitions in districts within states with

multiple federal districts. Here, as mentioned, the Court considers the petition to be a petition pursuant to § 2255. 

See Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (a petition contending Petitioner's sentence is invalid is still a § 2255 petition

regardless of what Petitioner calls the petition.) Thus, § 2241(d) is inapplicable. 

5

§ 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). 

The Ninth Circuit has also provided little guidance on what actually constitutes

“inadequate and ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. It has acknowledged that “[other]

circuits, however, have held that § 2255 provides an "inadequate or ineffective" remedy (and thus

that the petitioner may proceed under § 2241) when 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) (internal citations omitted)). The burden is on the petitioner to

th

show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83

(9th Cir. 1963).

In his petition, Petitioner has not alleged that § 2255 is either inadequate and ineffective. 

Petitioner makes no claim that he has not has an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his

arguments in the District Court for the District of Southern District of California. Indeed, 2

Petitioner does not indicate that he has ever attempted to file a motion for reconsideration in that

court. Clearly, then, Petitioner has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to

secure the relief he seeks. Thus, should Petitioner wish to pursue this claim in federal court, he

must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Since Petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence, the petition should be 3

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

dismissed on the grounds that no relief under § 2241 can be afforded.

B. Petitioner’s Pending Motions Should Be Denied As Moot.

Subsequent to filing his petition, Petitioner filed the following motions: (1) on May 15,

2007, Petitioner filed a motion for release during the pendency of the petition (Doc. 5); (2) on

June 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 8); (3) on June 25, 2007, he

filed a motion for the Court to sign orders (Doc. 9); (4) on September 4, 2007, he filed a motion

for additional names of respondents (Doc. 12); (5) on October 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion

for entry of default judgment (Docs. 15 & 16); (6) on December 7, 2007, he filed a motion for

injunctive relief (Doc. 18); and (7) on January 11, 2008, he filed a motion for court decision.

(Doc. 19). 

In light of the Court’s determination herein that the petition seeks relief that a habeas

court cannot grant and that therefore the petition should be dismissed, the Court will also

recommend that these pending motions be dismissed as moot.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. That the instant petition (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because it does not allege grounds

that would entitle petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241;

2. That Petitioner’s pending motions for release during the pendency of the petition

(Doc. 5); motion for summary judgment (Doc. 8); motion for the Court to sign orders

(Doc. 9); motion for additional names of respondents (Doc. 12), motion for entry of

default judgment (Docs. 15 & 16), motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 18), and motion for

court decision(Doc. 19), be DENIED as MOOT.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case 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 twenty (20) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations,

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

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

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 District Judge 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

Order of the District Judge. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00641-LJO-TAG Document 21 Filed 01/22/08 Page 7 of 7