Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Knight
Petitioner
D. Smith
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

WADE KNIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

D. SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-01275 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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. 

Plaintiff filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 31, 2007. 

Petitioner indicates that he was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania of various violations of Title 18, United States Code, sections 1951. 

(Petition, at 2.) Petitioner states that he currently has a Rule 60(b) motion pending in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania. (Petition, at 4.) 

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that his Miranda rights were violated; the

sentencing court exceeded its authority under the Guidelines; the sentencing court abused its

discretion by denying his Apprendi claim; and the sentencing court erred by failing to divide the

restitution between himself and three other co-defendants. 

DISCUSSION

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 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

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 (9 Cir.1988); Thompson v. th

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

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

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

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

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 (6 Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, th

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

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

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

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

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 (9 Cir.2000); United th

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9 Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has th

recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003)

(a petitioner must show actual innocence and that he never had the opportunity to raise it by

motion to demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054,

1055 (9 Cir.1999) (per curium) (holding that the AEDPA’s filing limitations on § 2255 Motions th

does not render § 2255 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.); Lorentsen v.

Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9 Cir. 2000) (same); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9 Cir.1988) (a th th

petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); Williams

v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9 Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 (9 Cir.1956); see th th

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 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

United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9 Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of th

§ 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 (9 Cir. 1963). th

In this case, Petitioner clearly is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his

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

appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a habeas petition

pursuant to § 2241. On the form petition, Petitioner impliedly concedes such by stating that “28

U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate vehicle for federal prisoner to challenge the imposition of his

sentence.” (Petition, at 4.) However, he contends that he is challenging the execution of his

sentence. Petitioner is mistaken because a petition contending his sentence is invalid is still a §

2255 petition, regardless of how Petitioner attempts to characterize the petition. See Brown, 610

F.2d at 677. 

First, Petitioner does not state whether he raised his challenges to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by way of § 2255 motion. Petitioner does

state however that he currently has a Rule 60(b) motion pending raising the alleged sentencing

error. (Petition, at 4.) Second, Petitioner has not stated whether he has sought permission to file

a successive § 2255 motion. It is possible that the motion would be granted in which case

Petitioner would have another opportunity to present his claim in the proper forum. Further, the

mere fact that Petitioner has previously filed a 2255 motion, does not make section 2255

inadequate. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. at 5 (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.) Thus, Petitioner has not shown that he did not have an

“unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his challenges to the sentencing court. Accordingly,

the petition should be dismissed. 

In addition, although Petitioner alleges that he is actually innocent of the charges, he does

not demonstrate factual innocence. Petitioner contends only that legal errors occurred at his trial

and during sentencing. However, even if Petitioner’s claims could be construed as a claim of

factual innocence, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has been barred from presenting such

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 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

claims by way of § 2255 motion. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that § 2255

provides an “inadequate or ineffective remedy,” and Petitioner is entitled to proceed by way of a

§ 2241 petition. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment, terminating this action.

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

72-304 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, 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." Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01275-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 4