Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03232/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03232-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

STACY L. WEISCHEDEL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RANDY TEWS,

Respondent. /

No. C 12-3232 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Dublin has filed a pro se petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She has paid the filing fee. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court must determine at the outset whether a petition filed by a federal

prisoner is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because congress has given

jurisdiction over these petitions to different courts. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861,

865-66 (9th Cir. 2000). A petition under § 2241 must be heard in the district of

confinement, whereas if the petition is properly brought under § 2255, it must be heard by

the sentencing court. Id. at 865.

A federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement must generally

rely on a § 2255 motion to do so. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.

2006) ("The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by

which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the

availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241." (citation omitted)). There is, however, an exception to that general rule. Under the

Case 4:12-cv-03232-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

"escape hatch" of § 2255, a federal prisoner may file a § 2241 petition if, and only if, the

remedy under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have held that a prisoner may file a § 2241 petition

under the escape hatch when the prisoner "(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2)

has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim." Id. at 898 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

B. Legal Claims

 Petitioner entered a guilty plea in the District of Montana in 1998. She states that a

direct appeal was denied and no other post conviction relief has been sought. Petitioner

does not allege that she is actually innocent of the crime, rather she claims that she was

improperly sentenced and that certain sentencing enhancements were improper. Petitioner

challenges the sentencing enhancements for vulnerable victim and reckless endangerment

during flight. These arguments do not raise a claim of actual innocence for a § 2241

petition. See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner's escape

hatch argument that he should not have qualified as a career offender in sentencing is not

one of actual innocence). Moreover, petitioner has not argued that she did not have an

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting these claims. In fact, petitioner raised the

vulnerable victim claim on direct appeal that was denied in a published opinion. U.S. v.

Weischedel, 201 F.3d. 1250, 1255 (9th Cir. 2000). To the extent petitioner wishes to raise

these claims she must file a § 2255 motion in the District of Montana. However, petitioner

will be provided one opportunity to file an amended petition in this court in the event the

court has misconstrued her claims or to state a cognizable claim more clearly.

CONCLUSION 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards

set forth above. The amended petition must be filed no later than February 4, 2013, and

carry the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims. 

2. The motion for clarification (docket #2) is granted.

Case 4:12-cv-03232-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must

comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable

in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.12\Weischedel.dwlta.wpd

 

Case 4:12-cv-03232-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3