Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06291/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06291-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY JAMES PEARCE,

Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

UNITED STATES PAROLE

COMMISSION, 

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6291 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case attacking a federal conviction. Petitioner was convicted in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See United States v.

Pearce, 993 F.2d 1021, 1022 (9th Cir. 1993). The petition is confusing and diffuse, and at

times incomprehensible, but it appears that his claims go to his conviction rather than to the

execution of his sentence. 

A district court must determine at the outset whether a petition filed by a federal

prisoner is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because congress has given

jurisdiction over these petitions to different courts. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861,

865 (9th Cir. 2000). A petition under section 2241 must be heard in the district of

confinement, whereas if the petition is under section 2255 it must be heard in the

sentencing court. Id. The sentencing court here was the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California, so if this is a section 2255 petition, this court lacks

jurisdiction. 

On the other hand, if this is a section 2241 habeas petition, this may be the proper

venue. Although it is not even clear if petitioner is in fact “confined,” as his return address

Case 4:06-cv-06291-PJH Document 4 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

is a street address in Oakland, he may be on parole or supervised release; he has named

the United States Parole Commission as a respondent. Thus, if he is confined at all, the

district of confinement is this one. That is, if this petition properly may be brought under

section 2241, this court has jurisdiction, but if it must be brought under section 2255,

jurisdiction is in the Eastern District. 

With the exception noted below, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal

court who wishes to attack collaterally the validity of his conviction or sentence must do so

by way of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to § 2255 in the

court which imposed the sentence. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.

1988). He may not attack collaterally 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) (challenge to sentence following probation or parole revocation

must be brought in sentencing court via § 2255 motion); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162

(challenge to legality of conviction must be brought in sentencing court via § 2255 motion). 

There is an exception to this general bar: 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.’” United States v.

Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has

recognized that the “inadequate or ineffective” exception in is very narrow. Pirro, 104 F.3d

at 299. For example, the remedy under section 2255 is not considered inadequate or

ineffective even when a successive section 2255 motion could not be entertained by the

sentencing court. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (“§ 2241 is not

available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of § 2255 merely

because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the

gatekeeping provisions of § 2255"); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999)

(dismissal of § 2255 motion as successive under AEDPA does not render federal habeas

relief under § 2255 an inadequate or effective remedy). 

Although petitioner does not say so in his petition, he has filed at least two section

Case 4:06-cv-06291-PJH Document 4 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2255 motions in the Eastern District. See United States v. Pearce, 993 F.2d at 1022. This

means that if he tries to file another section 2255 motion there, it will be dismissed as

successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) unless he first obtains permission to file a

successive motion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). This does not make federal habeas relief under § 2255 an

ineffective or inadequate remedy, however. See Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953. Therefore,

because a section 2241 remedy is not available under the savings clause of section 2255,

this petition must be treated as filed under section 2255, and this court lacks jurisdiction

over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (§ 2255 motions to be brought in sentencing court);

Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. 

The court must consider whether a transfer to the Eastern District is appropriate. 

Petitioner does not contend that he has obtained the permission of the court of appeals to

file a second or successive section 2255 motion, and this is confirmed by a review of

petitioner’s cases on the docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (second or successive § 2255 motion must be certified by panel of

court of appeals as provided in § 2244). If petitioner wishes to pursue claims attacking his

conviction he will have to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit to file another section

2255 motion in the Eastern District. A transfer to the Eastern District without such

permission would be futile.

 This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk shall

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\PEARCE291.DSM

Case 4:06-cv-06291-PJH Document 4 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3