Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00638-3/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

JEROME E. MARSHALL, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0638 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING PETITION

(Documents #1 & #12)

Petitioner, a federal prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. The petition challenges the sentence of life imprisonment without parole that was

imposed in the Southern District of Indiana in 1991 as a result of a guilty verdict in a jury trial

that found Petitioner guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute; being a

felon in possession of a firearm; making a false statement to acquire firearms; and conspiracy to

launder money obtained by illegal means. Petitioner filed a direct appeal from his conviction on

February 3, 1993. The conviction was affirmed. United States v. Marshall, 985 F.2d 901 (7th

Cir. 1993). Petitioner filed a motion to modify, vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S.C., section 2255 on April 24, 1997. That motion was denied on September 30 1998. Both

the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s request for a

certificate of appealability. 

On February 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner

to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Findings and Recommendation was served on Petitioner

and contained notice to Petitioner that any objections were to be filed within thirty

days.

On March 9, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations. 

DISCUSSION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C), this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the arguments made in the th

objections, the court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis. 

As correctly discussed by the Magistrate Judge, all of the petition’s claims are an attack

on Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, 

Petitioner presents two contentions in his petition. First, Petitioner contends that

his sentencing was invalid because the United States Attorney failed to provide

him with a statement in writing of the previous convictions that were relied upon

to increase his sentence, as is required under 21 U.S.C., section 851(a)(1). 

Second, Petitioner contends that the district court failed to take a categorical

approach to evaluating his prior convictions as required by Taylor v. United

States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). Petitioner claims that he is entitled to pursue relief

under Section 2241 in light of the “fact” that he is serving a sentence in violation

of his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to due process of law. 

He claims that because relief under Section 2255 is unavailable to provide review

of the illegality of his sentence, Section 2255 is rendered inadequate and

ineffective as applied to him.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the exclusive procedure by which a federal prisoner may

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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

test the legality of his detention. Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000). “A

federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under section 2255 may not petition for habeas corpus

relief pursuant to section 2241.” United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997). As

noted by the Magistrate Judge, there is one exception to this general rule. Section 2255 provides

that while a court normally cannot consider a habeas corpus petition authorized under section

2255 unless it is brought in the sentencing court under section 2255, a petitioner can bring a

petition under section 2241 if the remedy under section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test

the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, unless Petitioner can demonstrate that his

remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention”

this court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner relief through 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Moore v.

Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1178 (2000);

Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299. 

In his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff contends that he did not

raise the issue of the U.S. Attorney’s failure to notify pursuant to 21 U.S.C., section 851(a)(1) in

his direct appeal because his attorney was under the impression that the issue was jurisdictional

and could be raised at any time. Petitioner alleges the issue of failure to provide notice pursuant

section 851(a)(1) was raised in Petitioner’s initial petition pursuant to section 2255, but was

rejected on what Petitioner alleges was the mistaken ground that the issue was decided on direct

appeal. The crux of Petitioner’s argument with respect to his entitlement to challenge the

validity of his sentence by way of habeas relief pursuant to section 2241 is that he is now

procedurally barred from raising the issues presented here because the facts of his case do not

meet the standard for the filing of a successive petition pursuant to section 2255. Petitioner does

not contend section 2255 does not provide a mechanism to address the types of claims petitioner

presents here, either on initial petition or on motion for successive habeas relief.

Petitioner’s contention is based on the mistaken assumption that some habeas corpus

remedy must be available if Petitioner has claims that have not yet been addressed on the merits.

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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

The fact a prior court has denied relief in a section 2255 petition is not sufficient to show that

section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, even if a petitioner adamantly disagrees with the prior

courts’ rulings. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9 Cir. 1988). Further, section th

2241is not available under the inadequate or ineffective remedy escape hatch of section 2255

merely because the Court of Appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the

gate keeping provisions of section 2555. Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953. The Ninth Circuit has

found that an inability to file a second or successive petition under the AEDPA does not make

section 2255 inadequate or ineffective See Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953; Moore, 185 F.3d at

1055. Simply put, the fact the petition’s claims cannot be brought in a section 2255 petition

under the AEDPA’s procedural rules is insufficient to find section 2255 inadequate or

ineffective. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge properly recommended the court dismiss Petitioner’s

section 2241 petition. The court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 7, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. This terminates this action in

its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00638-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 4