Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06281/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06281-1/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

)

MARCO RENE ALMEIDA SOTO, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES R. GILKEY, WARDEN )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 04-6281 AWI WMW HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DENIAL OF PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

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

th 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 (5

th 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). 

Case 1:04-cv-06281-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/17/06 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

2

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

th 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); Brown v.

United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if

he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the

validity of his detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5 (9th Cir.2000); United

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has

recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003)

(a petitioner must show actual innocence and that he never had the opportunity to raise it by

motion to demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054,

1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions

does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a

court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Lorentsen v.

Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a

petitioner's fears 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); see,

United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of

§ 2255 may not be circumvented by invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651). 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 this case, Petitioner requests that the court grant him a two-point downward departure

in his sentence, on the ground that the disparate sentences between alien and American inmates

that result from immigration detainers lodged against the alien inmates is a violation of the right

to equal protection. Specifically, Petitioner claims that as an illegal alien, he is ineligible for

Case 1:04-cv-06281-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/17/06 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

3

various Bureau of Prison programs that would make his sentence easier to serve and allow him

to be released into the community earlier. 

Because Petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence, he is

authorized to do so only under Section 2255. He has, however, filed this petition pursuant to

Section 2241. As explained above, he can proceed under Section 2241 only if he can show that

the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his

detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d at 864-5. Petitioner expressly states in his petition

that he is filing under Section 2241 because the one-year statute of limitations for Section 2255

has expired. 

The fact that a defendant has missed the Section 2255 filing deadline does not make

Section 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9

th Cir.

1999) (holding that the dismissal of a subsequent § 2255 motion pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

does not render federal habeas relief an ineffective or inadequate remedy). Furthermore,

however, it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether Section 2255 is inadequate or

ineffective to test the validity of Petitioner’s detention, because even if Petitioner can properly

proceed pursuant to Section 2241, he cannot prevail on the merits of his petition.

In McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1183-84, 1185-86 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied,

120 S.Ct. 814 (2000), the Ninth Circuit unequivocally held that the denial of benefits such as

those sought by Petitioner to deportable aliens pursuant to immigration detainers does not violate

the Constitution as this exclusion is "rationally related to the BOP's legitimate interest in

preventing prisoners from fleeing detainers while participating in community treatment

programs." McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9

th Cir.1999)(holding that the Bureau of

Prisons did not violate the defendants' statutory and constitutional rights when it denied their

requests for an 18 U.S.C. §3621(e)(2)(B) sentence reduction on the basis of an Immigration and

Naturalization Service detainer lodged against them). Accordingly, Petitioner's claim of an

illegal sentence based on disparate treatment fails, as does his related ineffective assistance of

counsel claim.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of

Case 1:04-cv-06281-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/17/06 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

4

habeas corpus be DENIED and that judgment be entered for Respondent. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 Recommendation.” 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: July 17, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06281-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 4