Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06398/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06398-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REBECCA S. PARRETT,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLESTON IWUAGWU,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06398-JCS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. No. 12

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a federal prisoner convicted in Ohio but housed in this district, seeks 

habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from her federal convictions and sentence. As a 

general rule, federal prisoners must pursue such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner 

seeks relief under § 2241 on grounds that § 2255 is an inadequate means to test the legality 

of her conviction. 

However, petitioner has not shown she is entitled to use § 2241, as pointed out in 

respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 12.) Because she cannot use § 2241, this Court 

lacks jurisdiction over her petition. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND

In 2008 petitioner was convicted in federal court in Ohio on charges of wire fraud 

and other crimes. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) After conviction but before sentencing, 

petitioner fled to Mexico. (Mot. to Dismiss (MTD), Dkt. No. 12 at 3.) About a year later, 

in March 2009, the district court sentenced petitioner in absentia to 300 months in federal 

prison. (Id.) Petitioner’s attorney filed a notice of appeal in the Sixth Circuit. (Id.) When 

petitioner failed to turn herself in, the appeal was dismissed. (Id.) In October 2010, 

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mexican authorities arrested petitioner, who was returned to the United States. (Id.) In 

December 2010, she appeared before the Ohio district court. (Id.) 

In 2011, petitioner was housed at a federal prison in Dublin, California, where she 

remains. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) In 2018, she filed the current § 2241 petition, to which 

the Court ordered respondent to address. (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 7.) Respondent filed a motion 

to dismiss, the subject of the present order. (Dkt. No. 12.) 

It appears petitioner never filed a § 2255 motion. Her co-defendant did, but it was 

unsuccessful. (MTD, Dkt. No. 12 at 5.) 

The parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 5 and 16.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person claiming 

to be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why 

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or 

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks to overturn her federal convictions. To this end, she has filed in 

this Court a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, rather than, as is customary, filing a motion 

under § 2255 in the sentencing court. She seeks to use § 2241 because she believes that a 

§ 2255 motion would be an inadequate or ineffective means to test the legality of her 

detention. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 9.) She bases her use of 2241 on grounds that she is 

innocent, an assertion she believes is supported by “[n]ew evidence.” (Id. at 3.) She also 

alleges claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, 

and judicial misconduct. (Id. at 33-39, 40-49, 49-54.) 

“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.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 

F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This restriction cannot be avoided by filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. (citing 

Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999)).

There is an exception to this general rule. Section 2241 can be used if a federal 

prisoner can show that a motion under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the 

validity of his detention.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000). 

This is known as the “savings clause,” id. at 864, or the “escape hatch,” Lorentsen v. Hood, 

223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has recognized it as a very “narrow 

exception.” United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997). 

When a prisoner files a habeas petition under § 2241 on grounds that the remedy 

provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the district court must determine whether 

a § 2241 remedy is available under the escape hatch of § 2255. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 

864-65. This inquiry is critical to the determination of district court jurisdiction because 

the proper district for filing depends on whether the petition is filed pursuant to § 2241 or 

§ 2255. Id. at 865. If the escape hatch is not properly invoked, then the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the petition. Id. 

A petition under the escape hatch is permissible “when a petitioner (1) makes a 

claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at 

presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060).1 Id. 

“In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue 

his claim, we ask whether petitioner’s claim ‘did not become available’ until after a federal 

court decision.” Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960-61 (quoting Stephens, 464 F.3d at 

 

1

In Stephens, the petitioner was able to show that he hadn’t had an unobstructed 

procedural shot at presenting his claim. Several years after his § 2255 motion had been 

denied, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that permitted a statutory claim that was 

previously unavailable to petitioner. Id. at 898. Because this was a statutory claim, he 

could not raise it by way of a new motion under § 2255, which requires that a successive 

claim be based on a “new rule of constitutional law” or on “newly discovered evidence.” 

Id. Because he demonstrated that he was barred from pursuing relief under § 2255, the 

court held that he had shown that he had not had an unobstructed procedural shot at 

pursuing his claim. However, he was unable to make out a claim of actual innocence. 

Stephens, 464 F.3d at 899. His § 2241 petition was therefore dismissed for failure to 

properly invoke the escape hatch provision. Id. 

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

898). To this end, courts consider “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did 

not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion;’ and 

(2) whether the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first 

§ 2255 motion. Id. (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060-61).

Petitioner has made no such showing. First, new evidence can be presented in a 

§ 2255 motion (§ 2255(f)(4)), as can her other claims, e.g., ineffective assistance of 

counsel, see Pirro, 104 F3d 297, 299 (“The customary procedure for challenging the 

effectiveness of defense counsel in a federal criminal trial is by collateral attack on the 

conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255”) (citation omitted). Second, there is nothing 

indicating that the basis for her claims did not arise until after direct appeal. Nor is there 

any indication the law has changed. Third, petitioner’s opposition, which she titled a 

traverse, makes no contention regarding the unobstructed procedural shot requirement.2 In 

sum, petitioner has failed to meet the unobstructed procedural shot requirement, or shown 

any reason her claims cannot be raised by by way of a § 2255 motion filed in the 

sentencing court.3 Because petitioner has not met the procedural shot requirement, it is 

unnecessary for the Court to consider her claim of innocence. 

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 12.) This § 2241 habeas 

 

2 The opposition speaks only in generalities, e.g., “Petitioner disagrees that she is not 

entitled to relief on habeas corpus.” (Dkt. No. 19 at 1.) 

3 The remedy under § 2255 generally will not be inadequate or ineffective due to a delay in 

considering a motion under § 2255 until direct appeals are resolved, see Pirro, 104 F.3d at 

299; or due to the mere fact that a previous § 2255 motion was denied, see Aronson v. 

May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1998); see 

also Lane v. Hanberry, 601 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1979) (whether seeking to raise new issue or 

relitigate one already decided by prior § 2255, § 2241 not proper unless petitioner can 

show that § 2255 proceeding is inadequate or ineffective; must show more than lack of 

success in prior § 2255). Even the dismissal of a subsequent § 2255 motion as successive 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not render federal habeas relief under § 2255 an 

ineffective or inadequate remedy per se. Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953 (“§ 2241 is not 

available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of § 2255 merely 

because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the 

gatekeeping provisions of § 2255”); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(dismissal of § 2255 motion as successive under AEDPA does not render federal habeas 

relief under § 2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy). 

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

corpus action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of 

respondent, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REBECCA S. PARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLESTON IWUAGWU,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06398-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 18, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Rebecca S. Parrett ID: 85489-008

Federal Correctional Institution Dublin

5701 8th Street Camp Parks

Dublin, CA 94568 

Dated: June 18, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:18-cv-06398-JCS Document 22 Filed 06/18/19 Page 6 of 6