Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Matevousian
Respondent
Edgar Sanchez
Petitioner

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

EDGAR SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00599-LJO-SMS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS THE HABEAS PETITION

(Doc. 1) 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Lawrence 

J. O’Neill under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 302 of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is currently confined at the Atwater United States Penitentiary. In the 

petition, filed April 17, 2015, Petitioner alleges four grounds—three based on actual innocence and 

one based on ineffective assistance of counsel—for his challenge. Doc. 1. For relief, Petitioner

requests that his conviction be set aside or vacated, and that he be immediately released. Based 

upon the documents presently before the court and for the reasons stated below, the court 

recommends that the petition be dismissed. See Rule 4

1

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

 

1 Rule 4 applies to a petition brought under section 2241 because the court “may apply any or all of 

the [Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases] to a habeas petition not covered” therein. Rule 1(b) of the 

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

Case 1:15-cv-00599-LJO-SMS Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 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

Cases in the United States District Courts (“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the 

petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”). 

I. BACKGROUND

The court takes judicial notice2of the docket of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York, which revealed that Petitioner was convicted by a federal jury of 

conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance involving the killing of an individual using a 

firearm. He was, thereafter, sentenced to forty years in prison. 

On appeal, the Second Circuit issued a mandate remanding the case for reconsideration in 

light of its decision in United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2nd Cir. 2005) and the Supreme 

Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court, after due 

consideration, denied Petitioner’s motion for resentencing. On Petitioner’s second appeal, the 

Second Circuit issued a mandate affirming the judgment of conviction. Petitioner did not file a 

petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court because, as he states in the petition before this Court, 

his “[a]ttorney advised that certiorari would be in vain.” Doc. 1. 

Petitioner also did not file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and states that the “[o]ne year 

time limit lapsed for petition of habeas corpus section 2255.” Doc. 1. This petition followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

“In general, § 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal 

prisoner may test the legality of his detention. However, a prisoner may proceed under § 2241 if he 

can show that ‘the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality 

of his detention.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(internal quotations omitted). This exception is known as the savings clause, or the escape hatch. 

 

2

“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

. . . (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Case 1:15-cv-00599-LJO-SMS Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 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

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). Specifically, a section 2255 motion is 

inadequate or ineffective “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) (internal quotations omitted). “In other words, it is not enough that the 

petitioner is presently barred from raising his claim of innocence by motion under § 2255. He must 

never have had the opportunity to raise it by motion.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060.

In this case, Petitioner cannot show that a section 2255 petition would be inadequate or 

ineffective in testing the legality of his detention. Petitioner states he did not file a section 2255 

petition because the one-year3statute of limitations had lapsed. But that reason does not overcome 

the fact that Petitioner could have filed a section 2255 petition. Petitioner having had an 

opportunity to file a section 2255 petition but did not falls short of showing that he did not have an 

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claims. See Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (petitioner 

who could have raised claim on direct appeal or in his first section 2255 motion cannot show that 

he did not have “unobstructed procedural shot” at raising his claim to qualify for the escape hatch). 

Failing to show that a section 2255 petition is inadequate or ineffective, Petitioner may not proceed 

under section 2241. Instead, he must seek relief under section 2255. 

Having determined therefore that Petitioner must proceed under section 2255 to challenge 

the legality of his detention, this Court is without jurisdiction because Petitioner was tried and 

sentenced in the Southern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (“A prisoner . . . claiming the 

right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution

or laws of the United States . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court 

which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”) (emphasis added). 

 

 

3

“A motion by a federal prisoner for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is subject to a oneyear time limitation that generally runs from ‘the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes 

final.’ § 2255[.]” Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524 (2003).

Case 1:15-cv-00599-LJO-SMS Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 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

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court recommends the petition be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 

objections. Local Rule 304. 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, 

1156-1157 (9th Cir.1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00599-LJO-SMS Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 Page 4 of 4