Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00451/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00451-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Chavez
Respondent
Anthony Scales
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Scales 

(Reg. No. 11302-083),

Petitioner,

v.

Ricardo Chavez, 

Respondent.

___________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-07-0451-TUC-DCB

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Objections to the

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, which recommends dismissal of

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2241. Having performed its de novo review of the action, this

Court finds the Objections without merit and will adopt the Magistrate's

Report and Recommendation as the ruling of the Court.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

When objections are made to the findings and recommendations of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. Objections

First, Petitioner claims that the Report and Recommendation (R&R)

fails to consider certified copies of prior convictions used by the

Eastern District of Virginia to sentence Petitioner to life in prison.

Second, Petitioner claims that the Report and Recommendation fails to

Case 4:07-cv-00451-DCB Document 18 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 5
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

address pertinent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case law. Petitioner

goes on to rehash many of the claims and allegations previously lodged

in the direct criminal appeal and in motions to vacate his federal

sentence.

C. De Novo Review

In August 1998, after a jury trial in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Petitioner was convicted of

distribution of crack cocaine; use and carry of a firearm during a crime

of violence or drug trafficking offense; possession with intent to

distribute crack cocaine; use and carry of a firearm during a crime of

violence or drug trafficking offense; possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon; obstruction of justice; attempted killing of a witness

(tampering) and aiding and abetting; and possession with intent to

distribute crack cocaine. See United States v. Scales, 231 F.Supp. 437

(E.D.Va. 2002); United States v. Scales, 2 Fed. Apex. 390, 391 (4th Cir.

2001). Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison under 18 U.S.C. §

3559, plus forty-five years. 

On June 30, 1999, the federal court in the Eastern District of

Virginia (1:98CR00114) treated a letter from Petitioner as a motion to

correct sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 and denied it as untimely

filed. On May 22, 2002, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Federal

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, which was denied on the merits.

Petitioner filed an appeal from the denial of the §2255 motion, which was

dismissed. In November 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to file a

successive application for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244 with the

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied (Appeal Case No. 07-

6226). On September 10, 2007, Petitioner filed the herein motion pursuant

Case 4:07-cv-00451-DCB Document 18 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 5
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

to 28 U.S.C. §2241 with this Court, challenging his sentence of life

imprisonment under the federal “Three Strikes” statute imposed by the

sentencing court. Petitioner’s sole claim is that he is factually

innocent of the sentence enhancement offenses.

Petitioner is incarcerated in a prison facility within our

jurisdiction, but this Court is not the sentencing court. A federal

prisoner may file a habeas petition under § 2241 to challenge the

legality of a sentence when the prisoner's remedy under § 2255 is

“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28

U.S.C. § 2255. If a prisoner's claims qualify for the escape hatch of §

2255, the prisoner may challenge the legality of a sentence through a §

2241 petition in the custodial court. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d

861, 865 (9th Cir.2000).

This Court concludes that Petitioner has not properly invoked the

“escape hatch” exception of §2255 that would permit him to file a

petition for habeas corpus under §2241. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d

895, 896 (9th Cir. 2006); Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 866. Petitioner “cannot

satisfy the actual innocence requirement. In this circuit, a claim of

actual innocence for purposes of the escape hatch of §2255 is tested by

the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United

States, 523 U.S. 614(1998): ‘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.’ Id. at 623.”

Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. This Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation’s analysis that Petitioner’s arguments of actual innocense

of the predicate convictions used for enhancement purposes are not

persuasive and do not present viable claims of innocence. (R&R at 6-11.)

Case 4:07-cv-00451-DCB Document 18 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 5
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

The Magistrate Judge was not required to review the “certified copies of

the actual adjudication” of both robberies to reach this conclusion.

(Objections at 2.) 

Petitioner’s objections are not well taken, because after a

thorough and exhaustive review of the law as it is applied to

Petitioner’s case, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that

“Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has not had an ‘unobstructed

procedural shot’ at presenting his claim, nor has he demonstrated a claim

of innocence.”(R&R at 13.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that because

the requirements for filing a Section 2241 in lieu of a Section 2255 have

not been met, this Section 2241 habeas petition may not be treated as a

successive Section 2255 motion and the action should be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. Ninth Circuit case law supports this conclusion.

Stephens, 464 F.3d at 899. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court, after conducting a de novo review of

the record, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) in its

entirety as the ruling of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition Under 28

U.S.C. §2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody

is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. This action is terminated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office is directed to send

a copy of this Order to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals(Case Nos. 07-

6226; 03-6202), as well as the United States District Court for the 

//

//

Case 4:07-cv-00451-DCB Document 18 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria)(USA v. Scales, Case No:

1:98CR00114).

DATED this 5th day of September, 2008.

copy to 4th CCA; USDC/Eastern District of Virginia on 9/5/08 by cjs

Case 4:07-cv-00451-DCB Document 18 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 5