Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01524-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Edward Menke
Petitioner
Felicia Ponce
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT EDWARD MENKE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FELICIA PONCE, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1524-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel proceeding on a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Herlong, California. In 1996, he was sentenced by the United States District Court, 

District of Oregon, to 25 years in prison for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and as being an Armed Career Criminal within the meaning of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act. See ECF No. 1 at 11.1

 Thereafter, petitioner filed two motions to vacate, set aside 

or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 11-12. Both motions were denied. 

Id. Thereafter, petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As discussed below, it must 

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

///// 

 1

 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned 

via the court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:15-cv-01524-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 12/02/15 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 

2

This action challenges the validity of petitioner’s conviction and sentence under the 

Armed Career Criminal Act. Generally, a challenge to the legality of a petitioner’s sentence 

should be brought under § 2255 in the court in which the petitioner was sentenced, rather than 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the court for the district in which the petitioner is confined. See 

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[T]o determine 

whether jurisdiction is proper, a [federal] court must first determine whether a habeas petition is 

filed pursuant to § 2241 or § 2255 before proceeding to any other issue.”). This general rule has 

one exception. Under the savings clause of § 2255 (also known as the “escape hatch”), a federal 

prisoner may challenge the legality of his sentence under § 2241 in the custodial court, so long as 

his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id.; 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(e). “[A] motion meets the escape hatch criteria of § 2255 when the petitioner (1) 

makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at 

presenting that claim.”2 Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

“To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the 

evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley 

v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “‘[A]ctual 

innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has 

clarified that “a purely legal claim has nothing to do with factual innocence [and thus,] is not a 

cognizable claim of ‘actual innocence’ for the purposes of qualifying to bring a § 2241 petition 

under the escape hatch.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Here, petitioner argues that under recent changes in the law, his convictions of third 

degree reckless assault and first degree burglary no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the 

Armed Career Criminal Act. ECF No. 1 at 10-19. He does not make a factual showing that he 

 2

 “In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his 

claim, we ask . . . (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 (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). 

Case 2:15-cv-01524-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 12/02/15 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 

3

did not commit the offenses for which he was convicted. He simply presents the purely legal 

claim that he was incorrectly treated as a career offender because two of his prior convictions 

should not have been relied upon to make the career offender determination. This “is a purely 

legal claim that has nothing to do with factual innocence,” and “it is not a cognizable claim of 

‘actual innocence’ for the purposes of qualifying to bring a § 2241 petition under the escape 

hatch.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Turner v. Milusnic, No. 

CV 14-00746-MAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127095, at *24-25 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014) (claim 

that prior convictions could not serve as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act 

is not cognizable under § 2241 pursuant to the § 2255 escape hatch, citing Marrero). For this 

reason, petitioner has not satisfied the escape hatch of § 2255, and may not proceed under § 2241. 

The petition must be construed as another or successive § 2255 petition, see Porter v. Adams, 244 

F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001), and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Harrison, 519 

F.3d at 957 (jurisdiction over a motion under § 2255 lies only in the sentencing court). 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction and that all outstanding motions be terminated. 

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)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01524-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 12/02/15 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 

4

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: December 2, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01524-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 4