Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00084/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00084-1/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

)

KIRK TURNER, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

BUREAU OF PRISONS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05 CV 0084 LJO WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent opposes the petition.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During October and November of 1996, Petitioner sold a total of 12.9 grams of cocaine

base to an undercover investigator for the Arkansas State Police. He pleaded guilty to one of the

three counts in his indictment in May of 1999. Because he had prior convictions for assault with

a firearm and possessing a controlled substance for sale, the district court determined that he was

a career criminal and, on September 8, 1999, sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. The

Ninth Circuit affirmed Petitioner’s judgment on appeal. United States v. Turner, 210 F.3d 380

(8 Cir. 2000). On April 23, 2001, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to § th

2255, which the district court denied on January 11, 2002. Four years later, Petitioner filed an

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 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

application with the Eighth Circuit for permission to file a second § 2255 motion. The court

denied that motion on January 17, 2007. Petitioner filed the present petition on January 21,

2005.

LEGAL STANDARD

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the

validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner 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. 

See, e.g., Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); 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); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). To receive relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 a petitioner in federal custody must show that his sentence is being executed in

an illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional, manner. See, e.g., Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371,

372, 374 (9th Cir. 1995) (contending time spent in state custody should be credited toward

federal custody); Jalili, 925 F.2d at 893-94 (asserting petitioner should be housed at a

community treatment center); Barden, 921 F.2d at 479 (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in

determining whether petitioner could receive credit for time spent in state custody); Brown, 610

F.2d at 677 (challenging content of inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole). A

petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the petition

in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

DISCUSSION

In this action Petitioner contends that the copy of his presentence report and judgment and

commitment order in the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP”) Central File contain inaccurate information. 

In particular, he argues that the presentence report calculates his offense level and criminal

history incorrectly because the facts used to establish them were not contained in the indictment

against him and were not found to be true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends

that one of the felony convictions that was used to declare him a career offender has been

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 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

reduced to a misdemeanor under California Penal Code § 1203.4 and can no longer be used

against him. He believes that the judgment against him is incorrect because the district court

based his sentence on the presentence report and the non-reduced felony. 

Petitioner states that he seeks the following relief: (1) $20,000 in damages; (2) correction

of his presentence report; (3) resentencing to eliminate the effect of the career offender

enhancement that the district court used in calculating his guidelines; and (4) reclassification

within the prison system based on the corrected report. To justify these claims, Petitioner

invokes not only this court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction, but also the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552a. 

To the extent that Petitioner is seeking monetary damages for the alleged violations of his

civil rights, the remedy Petitioner seeks is not available through 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A federal

prisoner seeking monetary damages derived from the conditions of his confinement must bring

his claim in a civil rights action rather than a habeas corpus action. Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides Petitioners with a

remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. The court therefore agrees with Respondent

that this habeas corpus action cannot be used to seek monetary damages.

Petitioner asks the court to “void the invalid judgment and conviction order.” Petitioner

supports this request with two arguments. First, Petitioner claims that the district court’s

calculation of guideline variables should have been done by a jury using a beyond a reasonable

doubt standard. Second, Petitioner claims that one of his prior state convictions can no longer be

used to enhance his present sentence because the state conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor

under Penal Code §1203.4. As Respondent argues, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider these

arguments in the present § 2241 petition.

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 Cir.1988); Thompson v. th

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8 Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3 1997); th rd

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5 Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing th

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 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

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 (9 Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at

th

1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5 Cir.1980). th

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 (9 Cir.2000); United th

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

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

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

petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams

v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see, th th

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

§ 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 (9 Cir. 1963). th

Petitioner’s first argument, presumably made pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542

U.S. 296 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not a claim of actual

innocence. Rather, it is an assertion that a jury should have calculated Petitioner’s sentence, not

a judge. This assertion does not support a claim that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or

unavailable. See also United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9 Cir. 2005)(holding that th

Booker cannot be invoked in collateral challenges). Similarly, the argument that Petitioner’s

prior conviction has been altered by the state court does not show that he is innocent. See also

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 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

5

United States v. Hayden, 255 F.3d 768, 771 (9 Cir. 2001)(remedy provided by Penal Code § th

1203.4 is unrelated to guilt or innocence). Therefore, this argument also does not support a claim

that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or unavailable.

Finally, many of Petitioner’s claims rely on the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Petitioner

provides no authority supporting his ability to bring these claims within the present action.

Allowing Petitioner to pursue a civil action pursuant to the Privacy Act within a habeas corpus

petition would circumvent the requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, particularly

the exhaustion requirement. Further, as Respondent points out, the Ninth Circuit has long held

that the BOP fulfills its duties under the Privacy Act by allowing a prisoner to place his

objections to the presentence report in the file. Fendler v. Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 554

(9 Cir. 1988). In this case, a copy of the state court order in question was placed in Petitioner’s

th

file, and nothing more is required. 

In conclusion, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this § 2241 petition for writ of

habeas corpus.

Petitioner may seek to appeal from the judgment of the court in this case. Petitioner

cannot proceed on such an appeal absent a certificate of appealability. The controlling statute, 28

U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may

not be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

In the present case, the court finds no denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a 

certificate of appealability will be denied.

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) This petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED lack

of jurisdiction;

2) A certificate of appealability is DENIED;

3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00084-LJO -WMW Document 12 Filed 03/11/08 Page 6 of 6