Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00130/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00130-0/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\White130dis 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F. WHITE, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0130 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; NO

FILING FEE IS DUE

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Medical Center for Federal

Prisoners (“MCFP”) in Springfield, Missouri as a result of his 2005 conviction and

sentence in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (CR

04-0264-01 VRW). Petitioner challenges his “unlawful restraint pursuant to an invalid

and unconstitutional conviction,” alleging that his plea agreement was fraudulent because

he was not competent to enter into the agreement, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective

assistance of counsel, etc. See Petition at 2-4. Petitioner states that his petition is not to

be construed as a motion to vacate his sentence, or a petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. Id. at 1. The Court will DISMISS the instant petition without prejudice and DENY

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) as moot. 

**Original filed 2/2/07**

Case 5:07-cv-00130-JF Document 4 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\White130dis 2

DISCUSSION

Review of the execution of a federal sentence is properly brought as a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.

1984) (presentence time credit claim); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th

Cir. 1980) (parole decision claim); see also Mills v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir.

1992) (granting § 2241 petition alleging denial of presentence time credit).

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court who wishes to attack

collaterally 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 in the court which

imposed the sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162

(9th Cir. 1988). The sole basis upon which a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief

under § 2255 may do so under § 2241 is if he can show that the remedy available under §

2255 is “‘inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.’” United States v.

Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The Ninth Circuit

has recognized that this is a very narrow exception. Id. For example, the remedy under §

2255 generally will not be inadequate or ineffective due to the delay in considering a

motion under § 2255 until direct appeals are resolved, id. at 299; due to the mere fact that

a previous § 2255 motion was denied, see Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964); Tripati

v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Lane v. Hanberry, 601 F.2d

805 (5th Cir. 1979) (whether seeking to raise new issue or relitigate already decided by

prior § 2255, § 2241 not proper unless petitioner can show that § 2255 proceeding

inadequate or ineffective; must show more than lack of success in prior § 2255); or due to

the alleged bias of the judges who will rule on the petition, Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163

(availability of motion for recusal or disqualification renders the § 2255 remedy

effective). Even the dismissal of a subsequent § 2255 motion as successive under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not render federal habeas relief under § 2255 an ineffective or

inadequate remedy per se. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000)

(“§ 2241 is not available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of

Case 5:07-cv-00130-JF Document 4 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\White130dis 3

§ 2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive

motion under the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 ”); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054,

1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal of § 2255 motion as successive under AEDPA does not

render federal habeas relief under § 2255 an inadequate or effective remedy). 

Because Petitioner challenges the legality of his sentence and conviction under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 and has failed to bring himself within the exception to § 2255’s bar on

using other forms of relief to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, this Court has no

jurisdiction to decide the petition. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865-66

(9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the instant § 2241 petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Based upon this dismissal,

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is DENIED as moot. No

filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

2/1/07

Case 5:07-cv-00130-JF Document 4 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\White130dis 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

John F. White, Jr.

06527-045

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP)

P.O. Box 4000

Springfield, MO 65801

Case 5:07-cv-00130-JF Document 4 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 4