IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

WILLIAM G. MOORE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN FEATHER, 

Respondent. 

William G. Moore, 

25135-086 

FCI-Sheridan 

P.O. Box 5000 

Sheridan, OR 97378 

Petitioner, Pro Se 

Billy J. Williams 

Acting United States Attorney 

Case No. 3:15-cv-00484-JE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Natalie K. Wight, Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 26 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 5
JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge. 

Petitioner brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his 1995 federal 

convictions that resulted in a life sentence. For the reasons that 

follow, the Pe ti ti on for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( #2) should be 

denied. 

BACKGROUND 

On October 12, 1995, petitioner was convicted in the Western 

District of Washington of one count of conspiracy to manufacture 

and distribute methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to launder 

money, and one count of aiding and abetting the manufacture of 

methamphetamine. 

life in prison. 

As a result, the trial court sentenced him to 

Petitioner took a direct appeal, which the Court of Appeals 

dismissed in April of 1997. Pe ti ti oner then sought collateral 

relief via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 where he alleged that the Government 

withheld evidence and put on witnesses who perjured themselves at 

his trial. The District Court for the Western District of 

Washington denied relief. The Court of Appeals allowed a 

certificate of appealability and ultimately affirmed the District 

Court's decision in a 2-1 decision, notably finding that "the 

evidence against [petitioner) was overwhelming. " Respondent's 

Exhibit 2, p. 2. Petitioner continued to seek collateral relief in 

a variety of actions, ultimately prompting the Ninth Circuit to 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 26 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 5
enter an order restricting petitioner's filings in that court.' 

Respondent's Exhibit 3. 

Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus case on 

March 25, 2015. He alleges that he was not afforded a 

constitutionally permissible trial where he was the victim of 

prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, he claims the Government 

put on perjured testimony and withheld materially exculpatory 

evidence from him in order to obtain a conviction. He further 

alleges that he is actually innocent such that relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 is appropriate. 

DISCUSSION 

"A federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of 

confinement must generally rely on a § 2255 motion to do so." 

Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012). However, 

under the "savings clause" or "escape hatch" of § 2255 (e), a 

federal inmate may seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 "if, 

and only if, the remedy under § 2255 is 'inadequate or ineffective 

to test the legality of his detention.'" Id (citing Stephens v. 

Herrera, 464 F. 3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). 

A petitioner satisfies the savings clause of§ 2255(e) where 

he: "(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an 

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim." Stephens 

Petitioner's other collateral actions are adequately 

detailed in the Government's Response and do not need to be 

repeated here. 

3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 26 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 5
v. Herrera, 464 F. 3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) . The two factors to consider when assessing whether 

petitioner had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present 

his claim of innocence are: ( 1) whether the legal basis for 

petitioner's claim did not arise until the conclusion of his direct 

appeal and first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and (2) whether the 

applicable law changed in any relevant way after the conclusion of 

the petitioner's first § 2255 motion. 

F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 

Based on petitioner's extensive litigation history, it appears 

he has not only had an opportunity to present his claim of 

innocence in multiple venues, but has done so even in this 

District. See, e.g., Moore v. Feather, 3:12-cv-01899-JO. Even if 

this were not the case, where the Ninth Circuit previously rejected 

the claims petitioner brings in this case while determining that 

the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, petitioner fails to 

demonstrate that no reasonable juror would have convicted him even 

in light of the evidence he submits in this case. Because 

petitioner is unable to utilize the "savings clause" of § 2255, his 

Petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

RECOMMENDATION 

For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (#2) should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

The court should also deny petitioner's pending Motion for 

4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 26 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 5
Immediate Release (#25) and decline to issue a Certificate of 

Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a 

district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 17 days. If no 

objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go 

under advisement on that date. 

If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days 

after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response 

is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and 

Recommendation will go under advisement. 

DATED this IO day of September, 2015. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:15-cv-00484-JE Document 26 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 5