Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01928/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01928-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

17cv1928-MMA (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL VILLATORO MELENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1928-MMA (BGS)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner Joel Villatoro Melendez, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2241, 

requesting the Court “cease and desist . . . all proceedings, and, expunge/dissolve the 

entire record, the arrest, prosecution, criminal records and identification” because 

Petitioner has satisfied his judgment in full. See Doc. No. 1. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DISMISSES Melendez’s petition.

BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2017, The Court accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea to attempted 

reentry of a removed alien, Case No. 16CR2750-W, in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of California. Doc. No. 1 at 22. The Court sentenced Petitioner 

to one year and one day term of imprisonment, a two year term of supervised release, and 

an assessment of $100.00. Id. at 15-16. 

DISCUSSION

1. Screening the Petition

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is 

required to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 “If it 

 

1 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 

at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

Case 3:17-cv-01928-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1928-MMA (BGS)

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

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court 

must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks 

v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 

(1) specify all grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting

each ground; and (3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is insufficient; rather, the 

petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, 

Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in a 

petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary 

dismissal. Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491.

The difficulty with this petition is that Petitioner fails to advise the Court of the 

relevant details surrounding his claims. For example, ground one of the petition states 

that “[a]n actual payment of a judgment in full to a person authorized to receive it 

operates as a discharge of the judgment. It also discharges the lien created by the 

judgment since such lien cannot exist independently of the judgment which created it.” 

Doc. No. 1 at 7. The Court cannot determine from Petitioner’s vague factual statements 

what judgment and lien were discharged. The remaining three claims are similarly 

vague. The Court in this case is unable to determine the reasons for Petitioner’s allegedly 

unconstitutional detention. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed as vague.

2. Jurisdiction

Challenges to the “manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must 

be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 

861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 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 (9th Cir. 1988). In such cases, only the sentencing court has 

jurisdiction. Id. at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or 

sentence by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 

Case 3:17-cv-01928-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1928-MMA (BGS)

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

Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65 (“Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence 

must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions challenging the 

manner, location or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 

2241 in the custodial court.”); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162.

Although filed pursuant to § 2241, the present petition does not challenge the 

conditions or execution of a federal sentence. Instead, Petitioner challenges the validity 

and constitutionality of his conviction. See McCaleb v. United States, No. CV 12-8422-

JFW (PLA), 2012 WL 4815084, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012) (finding that claims 

seeking closure and discharge of the judgment challenge the legality of continuing 

confinement and not the conditions of confinement). Therefore, should Petitioner wish to 

pursue his claims in federal court, the appropriate procedure would be to file a § 2255 

motion in the sentencing court. On this basis, the Court concludes that the petition must 

be dismissed, unless Petitioner’s claims qualify under the savings clause.

a. Savings Clause

The Ninth Circuit has recognized a narrow exception allowing a federal prisoner 

authorized to seek relief under § 2255 to seek relief under § 2241, but a petitioner may do 

so only if the remedy by § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of 

his detention.” Alaimalo v. United States, 636 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). “This is called the ‘savings 

clause’ or ‘escape hatch’ of § 2255.” Id. Section 2255 petitions are rarely found to be 

inadequate or ineffective. See e.g., 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 (a petitioner’s fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition 

inadequate); see also Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390, 391 (9th Cir. 1957); 

Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582, 583 (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). The Ninth Circuit has established two requirements in this 

circumstance, holding “that a § 2241 petition is available under the ‘escape hatch’ of § 

Case 3:17-cv-01928-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1928-MMA (BGS)

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

2255 when a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an 

unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting that claim.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 

895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner does not argue that seeking relief under § 2255 would be inadequate or 

ineffective to test the validity of his detention and the Court finds no basis to qualify his 

claims under the savings clause. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner’s claims are not claims of 

“actual innocence,” and he has not demonstrated that he had an obstructed procedural 

shot at presenting his claim through a § 2255 motion. See id. Thus, Petitioner has not 

demonstrated § 2255 constitutes an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy for raising his 

claims. Accordingly, § 2241 is not the proper avenue for raising Petitioner’s claims, and 

the petition should also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus as vague and for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter 

judgment accordingly and close the case. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to send 

Petitioner a blank Southern District of California 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition form along 

with a copy of this Order should Petitioner choose to file a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus challenging the validity and constitutionality of his conviction arising from Case 

No. 16CR2750-W.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01928-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4