Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David M. Marin
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. MARIN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1134 AWI SMS HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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 petition on September 7, 2005. Petitioner indicates that he was

convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and firearm ammunition in the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division case number 02-CR-5196 AWI. A

review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in a petition filed

pursuant to § 2241. 

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.1988); Thompson v.

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing

court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal

Case 1:05-cv-01134-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/17/05 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

conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see

also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

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. 

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

177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United

States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79

(3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v.

United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). 

In this case, Petitioner contends that the evidence seized from his briefcase should have

been suppressed on the grounds that (1) the officers lacked probable cause to believe that a crime

had been committed by anyone, and (2) the warrantless search was per se unreasonable. 

Petitioner’s challenges are to fact or validity of his conviction, not the execution of a sentence. 

Thus, his claims are improperly raised in a petition under § 2241 and must be presented to the

sentencing court in a petition filed pursuant to § 2255. 

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 (9th Cir.2000); United

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). Although there is little

guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy, the Ninth

Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Holland v. Pontesso, 2000 WL

1170161 (9th Cir. 2000) (Section 2255 not inadequate or ineffective because Petitioner misses

statute of limitations); 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 (9th

Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal

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

Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956); see, United States v. ValdezCase 1:05-cv-01134-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/17/05 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

Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be

circumvented by invoking the 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

(9th Cir. 1963). 

Here, Petitioner does not allege that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to protect his

rights. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to fall within an exception to this rule which would allow

him to raise such a claim in a petition filed pursuant to § 2241. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot proceed with the instant petition under § 2241;

however, Petitioner may re-file a petition pursuant to § 2255, if he desires to do. Accordingly, it

is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed the send Petitioner a form petition pursuant to §

2255; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may

submit the completed § 2255 form petition; and

3. If Petitioner does not wish to submit a § 2255 form petition, the Court will

proceed with a recommendation that the instant § 2241 petition be dismissed as it

is not cognizable. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01134-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 3