Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01645/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01645-4/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)

---

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

RONALD SPARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

P. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01645-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because

the Petition did not allege grounds that would entitle him to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 9). 

The Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. On March 12, 2007,

Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 10). 

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis. 

Petitioner’s basic objection concerns the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that Petitioner’s

claims need to be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Petitioner has

not demonstrated that he falls within the one exception which would allow his claims to be brought

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This objection is without merit. As correctly discussed by the Magistrate

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

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

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 (9 Cir. 1997). As noted by the Magistrate th

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. The Magistrate Judge

correctly concluded that Petitioner has failed to show has his remedy under section 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective. 

Petitioner's petition is based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), which found that any fact, other than the fact of a prior

conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be

submitted to a jury. Petitioner has failed to show why he was barred from raising an Apprendi

claim in his direct appeal or a prior Section 2255 petition. To the extent Petitioner contends that

Section 2255 has been rendered inadequate and ineffective to protect his rights because Blakely was

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

announced after his direct appeals were resolved, neither Apprendi nor Blakely have been made

retroactive to cases on collateral review. See Rees v. Hill, 286 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation issued February 26, 2007 (Doc. 9), is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT for Respondent and close the

file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3