Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00480-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0480 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The court has conducted a preliminary review

of the petition and finds that the ordering of an answer is not warranted. 

Petitioner contends that the district court and the federal government were without

jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime of which he was convicted, a violation of 18

U.S.C. Section 2113(a) and (2). Petitioner contends, therefore, that his conviction and

sentence are unconstitutional. 

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under Section 2255 may seek relief under 

Section 2241 if he can show that the remedy available under Section 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

Section 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 Section 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9

th Cir.1999) (per curium)

(holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on Section 2255 Motions does not render

Section 2255 inadequate or ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s

denial of a prior Section 2255 motion is insufficient to render Section 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 Section 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 Section 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

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir.

1963). 

Here, Petitioner is attempting to challenging the constitutionality of his conviction

and sentence. Petitioner, however, has made no showing that the remedy available under 

Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Hernandez v. Campbell. The court finds,

therefore, that Petitioner may not seek to challenge the constitutionality of either his

conviction or his sentence through this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2241. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this petition be

DENIED.

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: January 12, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00480-LJO -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3