Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07225/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Athena Miller
Petitioner
United States of America
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATHENA MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-07225-JCS (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 

TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS 

OR A DECLINATION TO FILE 

SUCH A MOTION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a federal prisoner convicted in Texas 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 

has not made the requisite showing to proceed under § 2241. Accordingly, on or before 

March 25, 2019, respondent shall file either (1) a motion to dismiss on grounds that 

petitioner cannot proceed under § 2241; or (2) a notice declining to file such a motion. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2009 petitioner pleaded guilty in the Western District 

of Texas to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) A sentence 

of 240 months imprisonment and ten years of supervised release was imposed. (Id.) Her 

sentence was based in part on the fact that she had a prior Texas state conviction. 

Petitioner is currently housed in at FCI–Dublin. 

Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) The filing

fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 6.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

Case 3:18-cv-07225-JCS Document 7 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 5
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

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 challenges the validity of her sentence. 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 has not shown that she is entitled to use § 2241, 

however. 

“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)). 

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 that it is 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. See 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. See id. at 865. 

Petitioner has not shown that she is entitled to use § 2241. Respondent is directed 

Case 3:18-cv-07225-JCS Document 7 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 5
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

to file a motion to dismiss on grounds that petitioner cannot proceed under § 2241, or file a 

notice declining to file such a motion. In her response to the motion, petitioner show 

why she cannot present her claims in the sentencing court by way of a motion under 

§ 2255. 

The Court notes the following. 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). 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall issue a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent/declination form 

and the United States Marshal shall serve this form on respondent, as well as a copy of this 

order, the petition and all attachments thereto. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this 

order on petitioner. 

2. On or before March 25, 2019, respondent shall file a motion to dismiss on the 

procedural grounds discussed above, or a notice declining to file such a motion. 

If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on 

respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date 

Case 3:18-cv-07225-JCS Document 7 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 5
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

the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply 

within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is filed.

3. If respondent declines to file such a motion, the Court will set a deadline for 

filing an answer addressing the merits of petitioner’s claims. 

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent.

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the 

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 

be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

7. Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.)

8. The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 6.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07225-JCS Document 7 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 5
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATHENA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07225-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 January 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.

Athena Miller ID: 34015-280

Federal Correctional Institution

570 8th Street

Camp Parks, Unit E

Dublin, CA 94568 

Dated: January 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-07225-JCS Document 7 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 5