Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01242/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01242-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Moreno
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO MORENO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 01242 OWW WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, a petitioner 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. See, e.g., Capaldi v. Pontesso,

135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); th

Case 1:07-cv-01242-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 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

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those 1

brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2)

provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in such

proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.”

Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 

Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2 Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d nd

889, 893-94 (6 Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d476, 478-79 (3 Cir. 1991); United States th rd

v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8 Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9 th th

Cir. 1990). A petitioner filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must

file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if he

can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of

his detention." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-5 (9 Cir.2000); United States v. Pirro, th

104 F.3d 297, 299 (9 Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very

th

narrow exception. Id; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (a petitioner must show actual

innocence and that he never had the opportunity to raise it by motion to demonstrate that § 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding th

that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions does not render § 2255 inadequate or

ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9 Cir. 2000) th

(same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do th

not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); th

Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d th

1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by invoking the th

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is

inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9 Cir. 1963). th

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court 1

HEREBY ORDERS: 

Case 1:07-cv-01242-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 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

In the event Respondent is unable to obtain a photocopy of prisoner appeals and intends to file a computerized 2

printout of the disposition, Respondent must also provide the Court with translation of the internal codes used in the printout.

To the extent the claims concern prison policy and procedure not accessible to the Court by electronic means

(Westlaw/Lexis), Respondent must provide the Court with a photocopy of all prison policies and/or procedures at issue in

the case. This includes any internal prison policies of which a prisoner complains and is subject to. 

Counsel for the “Institution” means private Counsel representing contracted facilities such as Taft Correctional 3

Institution, (Wackenhut Corrections Corporation), or California City Correctional Center (Corrections Corporation of

America). 

1.Respondent SHALL FILE an ANSWER addressing the Petition within SIXTY (60) days of

the date of service of this order. Respondent shall include with the response any and all transcripts or

other documents relevant to the resolution of the issues presented in the petition, including copies of

appeals taken by a prisoner within the prison and before the Bureau of Prisons. Rule 5 of the Rules 2

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court recognizes that Counsel on behalf of the Government

and/or the Institution may wish to respond on separate issues raised in the Petition. However, the 3

Court will accept only one (1) “Answer.” Such Answer SHALL CONTAIN all argument with

respect to all of the issues raised in the Petition, whether formulated by Counsel for the Government

or the Institution. 

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a Notice of Appearance within TWENTY (20) days of the

date of service of this Order. The Notice SHALL indicate the name of the

individual(s) who will be representing the Government and/or the Institution. The

Notice is necessary to ensure that the appropriate counsel for Respondent is being

served by the Court. The submission of the Notice of Appearance will terminate

Court service on those listed in paragraph 4.

3. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due on or before THIRTY (30) days from the

date Respondent’s Answer is filed.

4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve a copy of this Order along with a copy of

Petitioner’s Petition and all exhibits, on the Office of the United States Attorney for

the Eastern District of California, an agent for the appropriate Correctional Institution

if applicable, and the United States Bureau of Prisons. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

Case 1:07-cv-01242-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 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

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01242-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 11/30/07 Page 4 of 4