Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00279/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00279-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lavoyce R. Billingsley
Petitioner
Zuniga
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVOYCE R. BILLINGSLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

ZUNIGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00279 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

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 habeas petition in this Court on February 23, 2015. He 

is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Mendota. Petitioner was 

convicted in the Northern District of Illinois of conspiracy to possess with the intent to 

distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a felon. See United States v. 

Billingsley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2618 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2010). Petitioner was 

sentenced on January 20, 2010 to 160 months imprisonment. (See Pet. at 2.) Presently, 

Petitioner asserts that his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated. 

(See generally Pet, ECF No. 1.)

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 6
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

I. SCREENING THE PETITION

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), AEDPA applies to the 

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 

1499 (9th Cir. 1997).

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

(Habeas Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule 1(b). Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to make a 

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily 

dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court...." Habeas Rule 4; O'Bremski v. 

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 

(9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the 

relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that 

point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 

Adoption; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 

63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably 

incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus either on its 

own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or 

after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 

8, 1976 Adoption; see Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001).

II. JURISDICTION

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 6
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

1988). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Id. 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. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 

865 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be 

filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, 

location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in 

the custodial court.”); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162.

In contrast, a federal prisoner 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. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. Here, Petitioner is challenging the validity and 

constitutionality of his conviction. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a 

motion pursuant to § 2255 and not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241.

The Ninth Circuit has recognized a narrow exception allowing a federal prisoner 

authorized to seek relief under § 2255 to seek relief under § 2241 if the remedy by 

motion under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention." 

Alaimalo v. United States, 636 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011), citing Harrison v. Ollison, 

519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). "This is called the 'savings clause' or 'escape hatch' of 

§ 2255." Id. Furthermore, § 2255 petitions are rarely found to be 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.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.

1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition 

inadequate). 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).

The Ninth Circuit has also “held that a § 2241 petition is available under the 

‘escape hatch’ of § 2255 when a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and 

(2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting that claim. Stephens v. 

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Petitioner fails to meet either of these requirements. In this case, Petitioner is 

challenging the validity and constitutionality of his federal sentence imposed by a federal 

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

appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing 

court, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court.

Petitioner did not lack an unobstructed opportunity to present his claims in his § 

2255 motion. After his conviction, Petitioner filed a motion for acquittal or alternatively, a 

new trial. United States v. Billingsley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2618 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 

2010). In the motion, Petitioner argued that there was insufficient evidence, and that 

several of the evidentiary rulings during trial were prejudicial. The motion was denied in a 

reasoned decision on July 12, 2010. (Id.) Petitioner next filed a motion to vacate, set 

aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 22, 2012. United States v. 

Billingsley, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182313 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2012). In the motion, he 

alleged eight separate grounds based on alleged ineffectiveness of counsel. (Id.) The 

court of conviction denied the motion on December 27, 2012. (Id.) 

Petitioner states that at the time of filing his § 2255 petition, the case law was not 

in his favor, and therefore § 2255 was an insufficient basis for presenting his claims. The 

fact that Petitioner's § 2255 motion was denied because the law did not support his 

contentions is not a sufficient basis to show that he lacked an unobstructed opportunity 

to present his claims. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, 

even if Petitioner presents claims of innocence, which it does not appear that he has 

done in this present petition, such claims can be raised by an initial § 2255 motion. Id.

Petitioner has not attempted to present the claims he now raises, and has not provided

sufficient reason as to why he could not have presented the claims earlier.

To the extent Petitioner argues that his present claims support his innocence, the 

claims are not supported by credible evidence. Petitioner asserts that there was 

improper governmental conduct involving the use of a false stash house and confidential 

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 6
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

informants. (See Pet. at 13-14.) Petitioner's claims are not supported by any tangible or 

concrete evidence supporting his innocence. Instead they are general allegations of 

government misconduct provided without any specific details regarding potential 

exculpatory evidence.

In Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), the Supreme Court explained 

that, "[t]o 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." 

Id. at 623 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d at 1060. 

Petitioner bears the burden of proof on this issue by a preponderance of the evidence, 

and he must show not just that the evidence against him was weak, but that it was so 

weak that "no reasonable juror" would have convicted him. Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 

950, 954 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has not met this standard. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated 

Section 2255 constitutes an "inadequate or ineffective" remedy for raising his claims. 

Accordingly, Section 2241 is not the proper avenue for raising Petitioner's claims, and 

the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to 

the present matter.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United 

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) 

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner 

may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. The Court will then

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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 District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00279-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 6