Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00568/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00568-1/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

MICHAEL NEAL BOYD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL SHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-05-0568 AWI TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING PETITION

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE SENTENCE

(Documents #3 & #12)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 27, 2005, 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. 

Petitioner has not filed objections.

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 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. Title 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 (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

Case 1:05-cv-00568-AWI-TAG Document 8 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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. Because Petitioner has not

demonstrated 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. 

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 December 27,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Petitioner’s motion to vacate his sentence is DENIED; 

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

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

its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00568-AWI-TAG Document 8 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2