Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02062/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Copenhaver
Respondent
Dorrell Emmanuel King
Petitioner

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

DORRELL EMMANUEL KING,

 Petitioner,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT 

DISMISS THE PETITION FOR HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On December 24, 2014, Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the 

United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (USP-Atwater), where he is serving a mandatory 

minimum sentence of 108 months in prison. He contends that an error in his presentence report 

resulted in an erroneous criminal history score and ultimately, imposition of an inappropriate 

sentence.

On February 9, 2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty to an indictment charging two counts of bank 

robbery contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On February 22, 2011, Petitioner filed a timely petition 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), contending that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by 

failing to object to the mistaken offense level, failing to object to discussion regarding a prior 87-

month prison term, and failing to file a direct appeal. Petitioner was resentenced to 108 months and 

given the opportunity to pursue a direct appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner discovered that his 

presentence report included an unsubstantiated 2005 guilty plea in a Kansas City, Missouri 

Case 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/11/15 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

2

municipal court. Plaintiff contends that inclusion of this unsubstantiated conviction led to an 

unfounded increase of his criminal history score in the second sentencing.

DISCUSSION

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

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1988); Stephens v. 

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9

th Cir. 2006). 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 using a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as Petitioner 

does in this case. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162.

A prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of his sentence 

may bring a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district in which he 

is in custody. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 

2000). But 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, 464 F.3d at 897. Restrictions on the availability of 

a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided by filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id.

Since Petitioner challenges the validity and constitutionality of the sentence imposed by the 

District of Minnesota rather than the administration of his sentence at USP-Atwater, proper 

procedure required him to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the District of Minnesota rather than a 

petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court.

If a federal prisoner can demonstrate that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate 

or ineffective to test the validity of his detention," however, he may nonetheless seek relief under § 

2241. United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); 

Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65. The exception is very narrow. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 

1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The remedy under § 2255 usually will not be deemed inadequate or 

ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was denied or because a remedy under § 2255 is 

procedurally barred. See Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63; 

Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390, 390 (9th Cir. 1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582, 583 

Case 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/11/15 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

3

(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).

Petitioner has not demonstrated that § 2255 constitutes an inadequate or ineffective remedy 

for raising his claims. Because § 2241 is not the proper statute for raising Petitioner's claims, the 

undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate 

of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention 

 complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

 applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

 right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

 specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

I 

If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or 

Case 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/11/15 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

4

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than 

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 

338.

In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that 

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, enter judgment, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, the Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is 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: March 11, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/11/15 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

5

Case 1:14-cv-02062-AWI-SMS Document 6 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 5