Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110622_0008748.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 04:05:00
Document Index: 112157842

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

| Gustavo Sanchez Montes v. Michael L. Benov
Gustavo Sanchez Montes v. Michael L. Benov
GUSTAVO SANCHEZ MONTES,PETITIONER,v.MICHAEL L. BENOV, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this Court on June 13, 2011. He is currently incarcerated at the Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, California. He challenges an unstated sentence from an unidentified United States District Court. He claims a ten-year sentence enhancement was wrongfully imposed by the sentencing court pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2577 (2010).
Petitioner states he has already appealed his conviction and filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his federal sentence imposed by a federal court, rather than an error in the administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the sentencing court, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court.
Petitioner argues, however, that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective, because he has already filed a § 2255 motion, and that motion has been denied. Under the AEDPA, a prisoner may not bring a second or successive Section 2255 motion in district court unless "a panel of the appropriate court of appeals" certifies that the motion contains: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir.2008). Petitioner fails to meet either of these requirements. First, newly discovered evidence is not at issue in this case. Second, Petitioner does not cite to any cases, and the Court has found none, finding that the United States Supreme Court decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder is a "new rule" of constitutional law that is retroactively applicable. Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner does not qualify to file a successive Section 2255 motion.
Nevertheless, Petitioner's inability to meet the statutory requirements for filing a successive Section 2255 motion does not automatically render the remedy under Section 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that a Section 2255 movant may not avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to Section 2241 rather than Section 2255, and that the AEDPA required dismissal of petitioner's successive Section 2255 motion because his claim was based neither on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court nor on new evidence). To the extent Petitioner may argue that his only remedy is to pursue his claim via a habeas petition pursuant to Section 2241 because a panel of the court of appeals would refuse to certify a second or successive motion under Section 2255, Petitioner's argument fails. Section 2241 "is not available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of [Section] 2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the gatekeeping provisions of [Section] 2255." Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 953. Further, as previously stated, the remedy under Section 2255 usually will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely because a previous Section 2255 motion was denied, or because a remedy under that section is procedurally barred. Id. at 953 (stating that the general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that "the ban on unauthorized second or successive petitions does not per se make § 2255 'inadequate or ineffective' "); see also United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2001) (procedural limits on filing second or successive Section 2255 motion may not be circumvented by invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651); Moore, 185 F.3d at 1055 (rejecting petitioner's argument that Section 2255 remedy was ineffective because he was denied permission to file a successive Section 2255 motion, and stating that dismissal of a subsequent Section 2255 motion does not render federal habeas relief an ineffective or inadequate remedy); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63.