Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01275-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Knight
Petitioner
D. Smith
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WADE KNIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01275-LJO-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT TERMINATING ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

a Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment,

terminating this action. These Findings and Recommendation were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were

to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order. On October 15, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendation.

In his objections, Petitioner contends that he is factually

innocent of the offense "because of the fact that a government

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 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

Specifically, Petitioner states that in the instant case "he has filed 1

several successive § 2255 motion[s] based around the facts alleged in his § 2241,

with no satisfaction." (Objections, at 5.) 

2

witness had testified that [he] confessed to participating in the

alleged events." (Objections, at 6.) Petitioner states that on

September 24, 2003, he filed a § 2255 motion on September 24, 2002,

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania raising the claims in the instant petition; however,

the motion was denied on November 1, 2002. (Objections, at 4.)

Accordingly, based on Petitioner's own contentions he had an

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claims. The mere 1

fact that his § 2255 motion was denied does not render this process

inadequate or ineffective. See Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964)

(a court's denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to

render § 2255 inadequate.) 

To the extent Petitioner is attempting to claim that he is

actually innocent based on the Supreme Court's holdings in

Apprendi, Blakely and Booker, the claim is without merit. First,

these holding do not establish that Petitioner is factually

innocent of the underlying charges. Second, in United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its

holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) that "Any

fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support

a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts

established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted

by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." 

Booker, 543 U.S. at 244.(citing Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488-490. In

addition, in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, the Supreme Court

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 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

 In addition, the holdings in Apprendi, Blakely and Booker, have not been 2

applied retroactively to petitions for collateral review. See Harris v. United

States, 536 U.S. 545, 581 (2002); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664

(9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Schardt

v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). 

3

merely applied its holding in Apprendi to invalid a state

sentencing scheme that allowed a sentence of more than three years

above the statutory maximum to be supported by facts found only the

trial court, not the jury. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-306. 

Petitioner's claim relies on the Supreme Court's holding in

Apprendi, and Apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law. 

Any claim that Petitioner did not have an unobstructed procedural

shot at presenting this claim, is factually baseless. Apprendi was

decided on June 26, 2000, and although Petitioner does not provide

the date he was convicted, he was sentenced on September 7, 2000. 

(Petition, at 2.) By Petitioner's own admission he filed his first

§ 2255 motion on September 24, 2002, well after the Supreme Court

issued its holding in Apprendi. Accordingly, Petitioner's claim 2

is simply unfounded. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 19,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 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

4

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment for Respondent,

terminating this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 4