Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles DeRosa
Respondent
Roberto Quinto Soto-Angulo
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

Petitioner does not indicate either the date of his conviction or the length of the sentence imposed by the 1

Southern District. However, he references an “Attorney Memorandum” related to sentencing that is dated April 28,

1995. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Thus, the Court infers that Petitioner was sentenced in or around 1995.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO QUINTO SOTO-ANGULO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES DEROSA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS AND DENY PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on October 26, 2007. (Doc. 1). The petition

alleges that Petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted of a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960

(importation of cocaine) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

California. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner does not allege that he appealed his conviction and 1

sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Petitioner now brings this habeas petition alleging that the trial court had, but failed to

exercise, discretion to make a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines conditioned

upon Petitioner’s willingness to cooperate in his removal, presumably once his sentence had been

fully served. (Doc. 1, p. 3). 

Case 1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG Document 3 Filed 11/14/07 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

As indicated more fully below, the Court determines that Petitioner is challenging his

original sentence, and therefore the claim should have been brought in the sentencing court as a

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, the Court will recommend that the instant petition

be dismissed so that Petitioner can pursue his remedies in a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

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 (3dCir.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 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 his 

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 (2d Cir. 1991);

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-894 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476,

478-479 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-187 (8th Cir. 1987);

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

In this case, Petitioner appears to be challenging the validity and constitutionality of his

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

procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. 

Petitioner has filed his petition on a form indicating it is pursuant to § 2241 and claims he is

challenging not the legality of his sentence but its execution, i.e., the failure of the sentencing

court to “consider a U.S. law which entitled the defendant a reduction of his sentence for the

mitigates [sic] circumstances because his status as deportable alien.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). A close

Case 1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG Document 3 Filed 11/14/07 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

reading of Petitioner’s claim, however, has satisfied the Court that, despite his contentions to the

contrary, Petitioner is in fact challenging the trial judge’s sentence based upon the judge’s failure

to exercise his discretion to make a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines based on

Petitioner’s status as a deportable alien and his willingness to cooperate in his removal. 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). 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. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003); Pirro, 104 F.3d at 299; 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.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-1163 (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 Ninth Circuit has also provided little guidance on what actually constitutes

“inadequate and ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. It has acknowledged that “[other]

circuits, however, have held that § 2255 provides an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy (and

thus that the petitioner may proceed under § 2241) when 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 1059-1060 (citing Lorentsen v. Hood,

223 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). 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).

In his petition, Petitioner has not alleged that § 2255 is either inadequate or ineffective;

rather, he indicates, rather cryptically, that he did not file a § 2255 motion because he “did not

wish to attack the legalty [sic] of his sentence, but the manner and its application....” (Doc. 1, p.

Case 1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG Document 3 Filed 11/14/07 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

A motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where Petitioner 2

was originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges a sentence adjudicated in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California. Thus, that court is the proper venue for filing a motion pursuant to §

2255.

4

5). . Petitioner makes no claim that he is either factually innocent or that he has not has an

“unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his arguments in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California. Indeed, Petitioner has not alleged that he has previously

attempted to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in that Court. 

Petitioner fails to appreciate the distinction between challenging his sentence and

challenging the execution of that sentence. Here, he is clearly challenging the sentence itself

because he is attacking the sentencing court’s failure to exercise its sentencing discretion when

fashioning the original sentence in this case. Nothing about Petitioner’s claim involves the

manner in which the sentence is being executed by the Bureau of Prisons. Hence, should

Petitioner wish to pursue this claim in federal court, he must do so by way of a motion to vacate,

set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

2

Thus, the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that no relief under § 2241 can be

afforded.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED because Petitioner’s claim does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case 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 of these Findings and Recommendations,

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 District Judge will

Case 1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG Document 3 Filed 11/14/07 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

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

Order of the District Judge. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01566-AWI-TAG Document 3 Filed 11/14/07 Page 5 of 5