T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AS HE E N D . F AI R L Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56180 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 3 4 7 1 - J V S- RZ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , B E E Z E R an d H A L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P r i s one rR a s he e n D . F a i r l y appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 1 p et i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus chal l engi ng hi s 199 6 j ury conv i ct i on re sul t i ng i n a m andat ory l i fe se nt ence . W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ct 

# FI LED APR05 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of

c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l . M c Q ui l l i on v. S c hw a r z e ne gge r , 369 F . 3d 1091, 1096 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n d w e a f

f irm . Th e f a c t s o f th i s c a s e a r e k n o w n t o th e p a rt i e s . W e d o n o tr e p e a tth e m. C ol l at er al es t op pel prevent s part i es fr om re l i t i gat i ng i ss ues thatw er e a dj udi c a t e d i n apr e vi ous di s put e be tw e e n the s am e pa rt i e s . C l a rk v. B e a rS t e a rns & C o. , Inc. , 96 6 F . 2d 13 18 , 13 20 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). C ol l at er al es t op pel appl i es w hen

“ ( 1) the i s s ue a ts t a ke [ i s ] i de nt i c a l t o the one a l l e ge d i n the pr i orl i t i ga t i on; ( 2) the i s s ue [ w a s ] a c tua l l yl i t i ga t e d i n the pr i orl i t i ga t i on; a nd ( 3) the de t e rm i na t i on of the is s u e in th e p r io rlitig a tio n [ w a s ] ac r itic a l an d n e c e s s a ryp a rt o f th e ju d g m e n t in the a c t i on. ” I d. C ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l pr e ve nt s F a i r l yf r om r e l i t i ga t i ng the i s s ue of w he the rhe m a yf ile a2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n u n d e rth e “e s c ap e h a tc h ” o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . S e e S t e phe ns v. H e rr e r a , 464 F . 3d 895, 897 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( de s c r i bi ng the appl i c a t i on of

§ 2255’ s “ e s c ape ha t c h” ) . F i r s t , F a i r l yl i t i ga t e d apr e vi ous § 2241 p e titio n a g a in s t th e U n ite dS ta te s in th e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn iain 2 0 0 6 . S e c o n d , in th a t a c tio n , th e p a rtie s litig a te d th e is s u e o f w h e th e rF a ir lyc o u ld col l at er al l y a tt ac k h i s 199 0 con vi ct i on i n a § 2 24 1 p et i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus un der the “ es cape hat ch” of § 22 55 . T hi rd, the di stri ctcourtdeci ded that3

F a i r l yc oul d notbr i ng a§ 2241 pe t i t i on be c aus e he di d notqua l i f yf orthe § 2255 “e s c ap e h a tc h .” F u rth e r , F a ir lyh a d n e a r lyid e n tic a l h ab e a s c o rp u s a r g u m e n ts he a r d i n 2008. AF F I RME D.