Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00330-0/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

RODOLFO MOLINA, JR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00330-OWW-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS; ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS

TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 

(Doc. 1) 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION DEMANDING THAT CAUSE BE

SHOWN (Doc. 3)

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 February 28, 2007. (Doc. 1). The petition

alleges that on October 24, 1991, Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. (Id.). Petitioner

does not indicate the length of his sentence. Petitioner alleges that he appealed his conviction

and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed his conviction

and remanded the case. (Id. at p. 2). A second appeal affirmed the conviction on September 16,

2002. (Id.). 

Petitioner now brings this habeas petition alleging that his original trial judge in the

District of Arizona did not have an “oath of office” or a “bond” and therefore Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence “is in violation of the Constitution because it is an illegal sentence.”

(Id. at p. 3). Petitioner also alleges that the prosecutor did not have a bond to operate legally as a

federal prosecutor. (Id.). 

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 6
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

On June 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion Demanding That Cause Be Shown to explain

why this Court “has failed to forthwith issue a judicial ruling or determination supported by

‘findings of facts’ and ‘conclusions of law’ on Petitioner’s habeas petition. (Doc. 3). 

As indicated more fully below, the Court determines that Petitioner’s claim challenges his

original conviction and sentence, and therefore the claim should 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 denied.

DISCUSSION

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. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd Cir. 1997); Tripati v. Henman,

843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th 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). 

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 (6th 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. 1980). 

In this case, Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity and constitutionality of his

sentence rather than an error in the administration of his sentence. Petitioner acknowledges as

much on the form petition by indicating that he is challenging his 1991 conviction and sentence. 

Also, his stated ground for relief--that the trial judge did not have the requisite oath and bond,

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 6
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

thus making any judgment entered by him in 1991 illegal–together with Petitioner’s own

admission, dictate the conclusion that Petitioner is challenging only his conviction and sentence. 

Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a habeas

petition pursuant to § 2241. Although Petitioner has filed his petition on a form indicating it 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 (9th Cir. 2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299;

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

render § 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 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). 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 his petition, Petitioner alleges that he has filed two prior motions pursuant to § 2255,

copies of which were attached to the petition, and that § 2255 is therefore inadequate and

ineffective. (Doc. 1, p. 4). The first motion to vacate judgment was filed on January 16, 2007,

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 6
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

in the District Court for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 1, First Attachment). In that document,

Petitioner alleges that he is “the holder of a perfected security interest in petitioner and parmount

[sic] first-in-line creditor by stipulation of the parties.” (Id.). Petitioner purports to “issue[ ] this

Bond to discharge all debt in the matter of Case No. CR-91-00253-TUC-DCB, which is

dischargeable as mandated by Public Policy through the Bureau of Public Debt.” (Id.). 

Petitioner also purports to have requested, on October 24, 2006, proof of identity from the

District Judge who tried his original case in 1991, and that said District Judge had “failed to

respond within the 21 days allowed for response.” (Id. at p. 2). Petitioner alleges that he sent a

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona on November 14, 2006, giving the Clerk of Court ten days within which to respond

with information regarding any “bond” in the name of the District Judge. (Id. at p. 4). Petitioner

alleges that he received no response. (Id.). 

The second motion to vacate was filed in the District of Arizona on January 31, 2007, 

and alleges that he has made FOIA requests regarding any bonds in the name of the prosecutor or

judge in his 1991 case, or any oath of office for the judge. (Doc. 1, Second Attachment, p. 2). 

Petitioner contends that both the prosecutor and the judge were required, as conditions of their

offices, to post a surety bond, and therefore any acts undertaken by them without such a bond are

illegal acts. (Id.). However, Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition as it pertains to

either a District Judge or a United States Attorney. Petitioner requests that his conviction be

vacated and the case dismissed. (Id. at p. 5). 

The instant petition alleges that Petitioner has not received a ruling on either § 2255

motion. (Doc. 1, p. 4). It is apparent, therefore, that Petitioner has failed to establish that § 2255

is either inadequate or ineffective since he has not received a ruling on either motion. Moreover,

even assuming that both motions are eventually denied, as discussed above, the mere prior denial

of § 2255 motions does not mean that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Aronson, 85 S.Ct.

at 5 (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.)

Moreover, Petitioner makes no claim that he is either factually innocent or that he has not

has an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his arguments in the District Court for the

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 6
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 1

was originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges a sentence adjudicated in the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona. Thus, that court is the proper court for filing a motion pursuant to § 2255.

5

District of Arizona. Indeed, if Petitioner’s allegations are true, i.e., that his two prior § 2255

motions (Petitioner’s “unobstructed procedural shots”) are still pending in the District of

Arizona, then a remedy is still possible. Petitioner has not therefore established that he qualifies

for the “narrow” exception to the general rule that he must raise this contention by way of a

§ 2255 motion in the trial court, not a § 2241 petition in this Court.

In sum, the record now before this Court supports the Court’s construction that the

petition is challenging Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, not the execution of that sentence. 

Hence, 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. 

1

Therefore, the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that no relief under § 2241

can be afforded. Moreover, because of the instant recommendation, Petitioner’s motion

demanding a ruling from this Court (Doc. 3) is now moot and must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Demanding That Cause

Be Shown (Doc. 3), is DENIED as MOOT. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be

DISMISSED because Petitioner’s claim does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 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 this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report and Recommendation.” Replies

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 6
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

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 Order of the District Court. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00330-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 6 of 6