Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01402-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles DeRosa
Defendant
Juan Carlos Toledo-Celedon
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

JUAN CARLOS TOLEDO-CELEDON,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES DeROSA,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01402 LJO 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. 

On September 24, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging his federal conviction for illegal re-entry into the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Petitioner is in custody at the California City Correctional Institution, in California City. 

DISCUSSION

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

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. §

Case 1:07-cv-01402-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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

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

In contrast, a federal 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, although Petitioner attempts to categorizes his claim as attacking his

sentence, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction. Specifically, Petitioner contends that

his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that he should receive a two point reduction

in his sentence if he accepted a final deportation order, and that the district court erred in finding

that his 1998 prior conviction for trespassing was an aggravated felony warranting a sentencing

enhancement. (Petition, at 3.) Therefore, Petitioner is challenging the validity and

constitutionality of his sentence rather than an error in the administration of his sentence, and the

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

pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner admits that he has filed a § 2255 motion but contends that he is

challenging the execution of his sentence, and not the legality. However, a petition contending

Petitioner's sentence is invalid is still a § 2255 petition regardless of what Petitioner calls the

petition. See Brown, 610 F.2d at 677.

In rare situations, 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). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that this exception is a very narrow one. Ivy

v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9 Cir.2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299; Aronson v. May, 85 th

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

Case 1:07-cv-01402-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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). In Ivy, the Ninth Circuit held that

§ 2241 relief is available pursuant to the “escape hatch” in § 2255 if the petitioner claims to be:

(1) factually innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted; and, (2) has never had an

"unobstructed procedural shot" at presenting this claim.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1059-60, citing, 

Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9 Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). The burden is th

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 shown that § 2255 provides an "inadequate or

ineffective" remedy. The 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. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill, 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 twenty (20) 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

Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) 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: October 31, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01402-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 3