Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00739/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00739-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0739-Construe2255.wpd, 41411 -1- 00cv2155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES FOLSOM, Civil No. 11cv0739-AJB (POR)

Petitioner, ORDER: 

(1) CONSTRUING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 2255; AND 

(2) INFORMING PETITIONER OF

OPTIONS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On April 11, 2011, Petitioner, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal

Prison Camp in Atwater, California, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner alleges that this Court was without

jurisdiction to enter judgment against him in Criminal Case No. 08cr1092-JAH, because the

criminal statute under which he was convicted is void as unconstitutional. 

Although the current action was filed as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court will construe it as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A challenge to the legality of detention by a federal

prisoner must be presented in a Motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, whereas challenges

to the manner, location or conditions of the execution of a sentence must be brought pursuant

Case 3:11-cv-00739-AJB-POR Document 3 Filed 04/14/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0739-Construe2255.wpd, 41411 -2- 00cv2155

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000); Stephens v.

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375,

377 (2003) the Court is required to give Petitioner the following options prior to ruling on his

§ 2255 Motion and to inform Petitioner of the consequences of choosing those options.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), the opportunity

to file successive motions under § 2255 is strictly limited. The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 by providing for a one-year limitation period for prisoners to file motions under § 2255.

The section states, in pertinent part:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of—

 (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by

governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States

is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such

governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the

Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

 * * *

A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by

a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain--

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the

offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006).

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS:

Option 1: Consent in writing to this Court ruling on his Motion

Petitioner may inform the Court of his desire to have the Court construe his Petition as

a Motion under § 2255 and rule on the merits of his Motion. To do so, Petitioner should file a

Case 3:11-cv-00739-AJB-POR Document 3 Filed 04/14/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0739-Construe2255.wpd, 41411 -3- 00cv2155

pleading with this Court entitled: “Consent to recharacterization of petition as motion under

§ 2255.” The Court will then proceed to rule on the merits of the § 2255 Motion after it is

transferred to the calender of the sentencing Judge, in this case United States District Judge John

A. Houston.

Option 2: Withdraw the instant Motion and file an all-inclusive § 2255 Motion

Petitioner may withdraw the instant Motion and refile an all-inclusive § 2255 Motion at

a later date which contains all issues he wishes to raise. If Petitioner chooses Option 2, he must

file a pleading with this Court entitled: “Notice of Withdrawal of § 2255 Motion.”

CONSEQUENCES OF PETITIONER’S ACTIONS:

Consequences of selecting Option 1: If Petitioner elects to proceed to the merits of his

§ 2255 Motion by filing a “Consent to recharacterization of petition as motion under § 2255,”

the sentencing Judge will rule on Petitioner’s Motion. However, the Court cautions Petitioner

that if he chooses this option this would be his one opportunity to file a Motion under

§ 2255 without being required to obtain permission from the court of appeals as set forth

above.

Consequences of selecting Option 2: If Petitioner elects to withdraw the instant motion

by filing a “Notice of Withdrawal of § 2255 Motion,” the Court will not rule on the § 2255

Motion at this time. However, Petitioner will be permitted to include the claims presented in the

instant § 2255 Motion is an all-inclusive § 2255 Motion filed at a later date before the sentencing

Judge. However, the Court cautions Petitioner that he must file the all-inclusive § 2255

Motion within the applicable statute of limitations set forth above. If Petitioner fails to

timely file his all-inclusive § 2255 Motion within the statute of limitations he will be

required to seek permission from the court of appeals as set forth above.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby NOTIFIES

Petitioner of the options set forth above. Petitioner shall reply to this Order no later than June

6, 2011, selecting one of the options set forth above. If Petitioner selects Option 1, the Court

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00739-AJB-POR Document 3 Filed 04/14/11 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv0739-Construe2255.wpd, 41411 -4- 00cv2155

will transfer the Motion to the calender of United States District Judge John A. Houston, the

sentencing Judge in Petitioner’s criminal case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-00739-AJB-POR Document 3 Filed 04/14/11 Page 4 of 4