Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02490/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Ortiz
Petitioner
Rafael 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM ORTIZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RAFAEL ZUNIGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2490-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 For the reasons stated below, the petition, construed as a § 2255 motion, must 

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Herlong, California. In 

1990, he was sentenced following his drug-related convictions in the United States District Court, 

Southern District of New York, and sentenced to 600 months in prison and ten years of 

supervised release. See ECF No. 1 at 2 (referencing United States v. Ramos, Case No. 1:89-cv810-PAC-2 (S.D.N.Y.)).2

 On direct appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

affirmed the convictions. Id. 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. E.D. Cal. Local Rules, 

Appx. A, at (k). 

2

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Case 2:14-cv-02490-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/11/15 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

In 1992, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied. See Ortiz v. United States, Case No. 1:92-cv2491-SS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1995), ECF No. 13. The Second Circuit thereafter affirmed the 

denial on appeal. See id., ECF Nos. 18. 

Petitioner filed a second § 2255 motion on April 6, 2000. See Ortiz v. United States, Case 

No. 1:00-cv-2637-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). The district court referred the motion to the appellate court, 

which denied petitioner permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. Petitioner 

then filed a third § 2255 motion on May 10, 2006. See Ortiz v. United States, Case No. 1:06-cv3542-MBM (S.D.N.Y.). The district court again referred the motion to the appellate court, which 

again, denied permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. Petitioner filed a 

fourth § 2255 motion on October 2, 2007. See Ortiz v. United States, Case No. 1:07-cv-8514-

KMW (S.D.N.Y.). After the district court referred that motion to the appellate court, petitioner 

withdrew the motion. See id. 

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.” 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-02490-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/11/15 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

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). 

“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). 

Here, petitioner previously filed a § 2255 motion attacking the conviction and sentence 

challenged in this case. In the instant motion, he fails to make a claim of actual innocence, 

arguing instead that the sentence imposed runs afoul of the Apprendi and Blakely line of cases, 

and that the district court erred by not submitting entrapment instructions to the jury.3 The 

appellate court has denied petitioner’s repeated requests for permission to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion and petitioner has not shown that the remedy afforded in those 

proceedings was “inadequate or ineffective” to allow him to challenge his sentence. 

For these reasons, the petition must be construed as another or successive § 2255 petition, 

see Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001), and it 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 ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

and the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

 

 3 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 

(2004). 

Case 2:14-cv-02490-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 3