Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01092-0/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 This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ANDREW GRESCHNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KEN CLARK, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01092 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in custody of the California Department of Corrections. He challenges

his 1984 convictions in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for first degree

murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in

prison.

Petitioner moved for a retrial, but this was denied by the court. Petitioner then appealed the

Case 1:06-cv-01092-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

convictions to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 25, 1986, the Tenth Circuit

affirmed the conviction. Petitioner petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme

Court which was denied.

On September 5, 1993, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. On June 8, 1995, the sentencing court denied

the motion. 

On July 12, 1995, Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth

Circuit affirmed the district court ruling on October 10, 1996. On October 21, 1996, Petitioner

moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and the motion was subsequently denied. 

On August 18, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner alleges the trial court committed instructional error in the manner it instructed the

jury on self-defense. He contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury to disregard Petitioner’s

defense, that of premeditated self-defense. He alleges this resulted in a directed verdict against

Petitioner by establishing the element of malice as a matter of law. He states he has presented these

claims in his prior petitions and appeals, but he contends they were not ruled on by the courts.

JURISDICTION

A prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal 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 (9th 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 (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 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.

Case 1:06-cv-01092-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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 Petitioner states that § 2255 relief is foreclosed because he has already filed and been denied a first § 2255 motion.

2

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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). 

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

rather than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure

would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. 

Petitioner concedes this fact. Petitioner admits bringing this petition as a § 2241 petition instead of a

§ 2255 petition to avoid 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)'s constraints on second petitions. However, a petition 2

contending Petitioner's conviction 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. Id; 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 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 the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner makes the claim that § 2255 is inadequate

and ineffective. Petitioner contends he has presented his claims to the previous courts but those

courts did not rule on his claims. The Ninth Circuit has provided little guidance on what constitutes

“inadequate and ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged

Case 1:06-cv-01092-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

that “[o]ther circuits have held that . . . a federal prisoner who is actually innocent of the crime of

conviction, but who has never had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting a claim of

innocence, may resort to § 2241 if the possibility of relief under § 2255 is foreclosed.” Lorentsen v.

Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9 Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit th

in Lorentsen specifically declined to decide whether to adopt the holdings of any other circuits. Id. 

Notably, however, the Ninth Circuit did find that the Petitioner in Lorentsen could not invoke the

“escape hatch in § 2255" because the Petitioner was not “actually innocent” of the underlying

conviction. Id. 

It is clear that Petitioner’s arguments do not demonstrate the § 2255 forum to be inadequate

or ineffective. First, as Petitioner concedes, he has had several unobstructed procedural opportunities

to present his claims, and he has done so. Whether the earlier courts specifically ruled on his claims

is beside the point. The savings clause can only be satisfied if Petitioner has been denied the

opportunity to present his claims, which he concedes he has not. The savings clause does not serve

as a further level of appeal. Moreover, the Court notes that the earlier courts did in fact address

Petitioner’s claims. In its 1995 order reviewing Petitioner’s motion pursuant to § 2255, the Kansas

District Court specifically stated:

Greschner’s repeated refrain in the instant motion is that the court’s answers, in

effect, instructed the jury to disregard Greschner’s defense of “premeditated self-defense,”

i.e., that Greschner felt threatened, prepared to defend himself with a knife, and then was

faced with an attack in which he had to defend himself . . . .

See p. 8, Exhibit B, Petition. Thus, Petitioner’s contention that his claims were never ruled on is

without merit. 

Petitioner further contends he cannot seek further relief by way of a § 2255 motion because

he has already filed a first § 2255 motion. In Moore v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit stated, “the dismissal

of a § 2255 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not render federal habeas relief an

ineffective or inadequate remedy.” 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999). In addition, Petitioner may

th

petition the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.

Petitioner’s arguments fail to satisfy the savings clause. The instant petition should be

dismissed.

Case 1:06-cv-01092-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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 Recommendations.” 

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: September 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01092-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 5 of 5