Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00116/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00116-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Carroll
Petitioner
Warden, USP-Atwater
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG CARROLL,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, USP-ATWATER,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00116-NONE-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 8); 

SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DIRECTING 

THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF 

CLOSING CASE AND THEN ENTER 

JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE; AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On January 31, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 

issued findings and recommendation recommending that the pending petition be summarily 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served 

upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days 

from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections.1 

 

1

 The court notes that the findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff at his address 

of record but were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service on February 18, 2020, as 

“Undeliverable, Refused.” 

Case 1:20-cv-00116-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/31/20 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner has 

already filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court (the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of Georgia), which was denied. He then filed this petition under § 

2241 in the Northern District of Georgia, and that petition was transferred to this court. 

“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, and that restrictions on the 

availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” 

Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, an 

exception exists by which a federal prisoner may seek relief under § 2241, referred to as the 

“savings clause” or “escape hatch” of § 2255. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th 

Cir. 2008). “[I]f, and only if, the remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the 

legality of his detention’” may a prisoner proceed under § 2241. Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 

1192 (9th Cir. 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very 

narrow exception. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The exception will not 

apply “merely because section 2255’s gatekeeping provisions,” such as the statute of limitations 

or the limitation on successive petitions, now prevent the courts from considering a § 2255 

motion. Id. at 1059 (ban on unauthorized or successive petitions does not per se make § 2255 

inadequate or ineffective). The Ninth Circuit has held that a petition meets the escape hatch 

criteria of § 2255 (and therefore may proceed under § 2241) when the petitioner: (1) makes a 

claim of actual innocence; and, (2) has never had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting 

the claim. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959. 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). If a 

petitioner fails to meet this burden, then his § 2241 petition must be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060.

In this case, Petitioner makes no claim of being factually innocent. He instead takes issue 

with the sentence imposed against him by, for example, claiming that it was unlawful for the 

Case 1:20-cv-00116-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/31/20 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

sentencing court to impose a sentence including “fine, imprisonment, restitution, probation, and 

criminal forfeiture,” when, according to his reading of the law, only a sentencing imposing a fine 

or imprisonment is permissible. (See Doc. 1 at 3.) 

To determine whether a petitioner never had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his 

claim, a court considers “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did not arise until after 

he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion;’ and (2) whether the law changed ‘in 

any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 

(quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060–61). In this case, the legal basis for the claim petitioner now seeks 

to present was available to him prior to his sentencing. As the pending findings and 

recommendations appropriately point out, petitioner has presented this same challenges to his 

sentence to the sentencing court in various motions seeking relief from that court. (See Doc. 11 at 

5 (citing sentencing court record).) Thus, petitioner has failed to show that he has never had an 

unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claim and his pending petition before this 

court must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 

and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-

336 (2003). A successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that is disguised as a § 2241 petition 

requires a certificate of appealability. See Harrison, 519 F.3d at 958; Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 

1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate 

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

(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.

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00116-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/31/20 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

(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 issue or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a 

petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 

in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. 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. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed January 31, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction; 

/////

Case 1:20-cv-00116-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/31/20 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

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 

of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and,

4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00116-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 5