Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00292/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00292-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melissa Parr
Respondent
Melvin Warren Rivers
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN WARREN RIVERS,

Petitioner,

v.

MELISSA PARR,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15)

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

purportedly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss 

the pending petition be granted, petitioner’s motion for entry of default judgment be denied, and 

the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner has

failed to satisfy the criteria to bring a § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(e). (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service 

of that order. On October 24, 2019, petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 17.)

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, including petitioner’s

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/20 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

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

The assigned magistrate judge found that petitioner failed to establish that he did not have

an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his actual innocence claim. (Doc. No. 15 at 4.) 

Petitioner objects that the legal basis for his claim did not arise until two years after he had 

exhausted his first § 2255 motion, pointing to declaration signed by the alleged victim of 

petitioner’s crime which is dated February 15, 2018. (Doc. No. 17 at 4.) However, petitioner 

cannot proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the escape hatch or savings clause without presenting a 

legal basis that did not arise until after he exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, 

such as a change in the law. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In 

determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim . . . we 

consider: (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.”) (internal quotations omitted). 

Petitioner has failed to make that showing.

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. See id. at 958 (“Where a petition purportedly brought 

under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial 

of that petition without a COA.”). A petitioner 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, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To 

obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing 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, 483–84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 

463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/20 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

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 

determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 

be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendation issued on October 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 15) are 

adopted;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted;

3. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 12) is denied;

4. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case; and

6. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3