Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01025-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY LEE KEY,

Petitioner,

v.

HECTOR A. RIOS, JR.,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-01025-OWW-DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater,

California. He challenges his conditional guilty plea and sentence in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced under the armed career criminal statute

to 210 months imprisonment. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

and United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 1998, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction.

Petitioner petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was

denied.

This information was derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus and attachments thereto.

1

1

Case 1:10-cv-01025-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 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

On September 14, 1999, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, which was denied on August 2,

2000. 

On January 2, 2001, the Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for rehearing. 

On April 16, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States

Supreme Court, which was denied. 

On December 21, 2009, Petitioner mailed a letter to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit which he requested be construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244

authorizing the filing of a second or successive application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On

March 11, 2010, the Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for relief, in case number 09-321. 

On April 5, 2010, Petitioner attempted to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) in the United States Supreme Court, which was returned by the Court on

April 14, 2010. Petitioner attempted again to file a petition on April 27, 2010, which was

returned by the Court on May 5, 2010. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 7, 2010. Petitioner

argues that the his prior escape conviction was not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA). Petitioner also contends that he is actually innocent of the ACCA

sentencing designation because he has not suffered three prior violent felony or serious drug

offenses. 

DISCUSSION

A prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal

conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v.

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing

court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal

conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see

2

Case 1:10-cv-01025-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 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

also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

In contrast, a prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence's

execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Capaldi v.

Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th

Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v.

Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991);Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir.

1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United

States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). 

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his federal

sentence rather than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate

procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to

§ 2241. 

As Petitioner acknowledges, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may

seek relief under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or

ineffective to test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th

Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is

an inadequate or ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow

exception. Id; Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a

petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate);

Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th

Cir.1956). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. 

Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 

To the extent Petitioner claims that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective, it is without

merit. It appears that Petitioner is attempting to argue that the in light of the United States

Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Chambers v. United States, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172

L.Ed.2d 484 (2009), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed. 490

(2008), he could not have filed a 2255 challenge to the ACCA sentencing enhancement because

3

Case 1:10-cv-01025-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 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

those cases had not yet been decided. Although these decisions were decided after the time for

filing a § 2255 motion, Petitioner has not and can not demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate and

ineffective. It is clear that Petitioner’s arguments do not demonstrate the § 2255 forum to be

inadequate or ineffective. First, as Petitioner concedes, he has had several unobstructed

procedural opportunities to present his claims after the decisions in Begay and Chambers, and he

has done so. The savings clause can only be satisfied if Petitioner has been denied the

opportunity to present his claims, which he has not. The fact that the § 2255 motion was denied

does not render this avenue inadequate or ineffective. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. at 5; Moore v.

Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (“the dismissal of a § 2255 motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not render federal habeas relief an ineffective or inadequate remedy.”) 

Petitioner further claims that he is “actually innocent,” not of the federal crimes for which

he pled guilty, but of being a “armed career criminal” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). This claim

“is not, by itself, a claim of actual innocence.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.

2006). Petitioner’s legal theory is not based on “newly discovered evidence” demonstrating that

he actually innocent. Nor is it based on a new rule of constitutional law. The decision in Begay,

was based solely on a statutory construction of the sentencing provision. In addition, because

Petitioner’s claim is based on a sentencing enhancement, Petitioner cannot demonstrate the

requisite showing that “‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted

him.’” Id. at 898. It is not a “crime” to be a “armed career criminal offender”; rather such status

serves only to increase a sentence of a defendant who fails within the statutory definition. 

Petitioner’s arguments fail to satisfy the savings clause, and the instant petition should be

dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle petitioner to relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

4

Case 1:10-cv-01025-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 4 of 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

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:10-cv-01025-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 5 of 5