Source: https://casetext.com/case/radales-v-united-states-1
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 12:12:24
Document Index: 174498469

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 1651', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241']

Radales v. United States, 1:12-cv-0 0 62 4-SKO-HC | Casetext
Radales v. United States
1:12-cv-0 0 62 4-SKO-HC (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2012)
Radalesv.United States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMay 14, 2012
1:12-cv-0 0 62 4-SKO-HC
CARLOS RADALES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1)
Here, Petitioner is an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atwater, California (USPA) who challenges his sentence of 120 months imposed in the United States District Court for North Carolina for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation or 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (Pet. 1-2.)
Petitioner alleges that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, who allegedly failed to investigate Petitioner's background adequately, gave inadequate advice concerning the possible sentence in connection with the entry of Petitioner's guilty plea, and failed to move to reduce Petitioner's sentence. (Pet. 4-10.)
A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 only if he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting § 2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy, in the Ninth Circuit it is recognized that the exception is narrow. Id.; Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal of a successive motion pursuant to § 2255 did not render such motion procedure an ineffective or inadequate remedy so as to authorize a federal prisoner to seek habeas relief); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1988) (petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition inadequate); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by filing a petition for writ of audita querela pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651).
Here, Petitioner challenges his plea and sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Petitioner alleges errors in his conviction and sentence, and not errors in the administration of his sentence, he is not entitled to relief under § 2241. Additionally, although Petitioner states generally that his remedy by way of section 2255 is deemed to be inadequate or ineffective (pet. 3), he fails to specify the basis for any inadequacy or to allege any facts in support of his generalized assertion that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
Should the Petitioner wish to pursue his claims in federal court, he must do so by way of a motion to vacate or set aside pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where the petitioner was originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges convictions and sentences adjudicated in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina. (Pet. 2.)
Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 239-40 (1998). Appeal from a proceeding that is nominally undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but which is really a successive application under § 2255, requires a certificate of appealability. Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001).
It appears from the face of Petitioner's § 2241 petition that Petitioner is raising claims attacking the legality of his conviction and sentence, and not the execution of his sentence.