Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02314/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

Crim. Case No. 3:90-cr-01320-BTM

Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-02314-BTM

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

RAMON ALVAREZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

Crim. Case No. 3:90-cr-01320-BTM

Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-02314-BTM

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION 

AS MOTION TO VACATE 

CONVICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 AND DISMISSING 

SUCCESSIVE § 2255 MOTION 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

[Crim. Case, ECF Nos. 289, 291]

Before the Court are Defendant Ramon Alvarez-Rodriguez’s recent filings 

which seek to collaterally-attack his federal conviction for which he is currently 

incarcerated. (Crim. Case, ECF Nos. 289, 291.) Because the instant motions 

challenge the validity of his underlying conviction, the Court has construed the 

motions as motions to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. See Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Prisoners 

cannot avoid the [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s] rules by 

inventive captioning. Any motion filed in the district court that imposed the 

sentence, and substantively within the scope of § 2255 ¶ 1, is a motion under § 

2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the cover.”); see also 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:19-cv-02314-BTM Document 5 Filed 12/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

Crim. Case No. 3:90-cr-01320-BTM

Civ. Case No. 3:19-cv-02314-BTM

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(a) (“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of 

Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was 

imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the 

court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was 

in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or 

correct the sentence.”). Although Defendant has become increasingly inventive in 

his captioning, the instant motions are his sixth attempt to collaterally attack his 

underlying federal conviction via § 2255. (See Crim. Case, ECF Nos. 182, 211, 

221, 222, 230, 231, 248, 250, 269, 270.) Because Defendant has not obtained 

permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit prior to 

filing his instant § 2255 motions, however, the Court is without jurisdiction to 

consider them or grant him the relief requested therein. See United States v. 

Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] second or successive § 

2255 petition may not be considered by the district court unless petitioner obtains 

a certificate authorizing the district court to do so.” (internal quotations and citations

omitted)). Accordingly, the motions (Crim. Case, ECF Nos. 289, 291) are 

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 9, 2019 _______________________________

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02314-BTM Document 5 Filed 12/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2