Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120430_0005832.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 02:19:18
Document Index: 337135841

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

| Ferdinand R. Balcar v. Fci Mendota Warden
Ferdinand R. Balcar v. Fci Mendota Warden
FERDINAND R. BALCAR,PETITIONER,v.FCI MENDOTA WARDEN, ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), CLOSE THE ACTION, AND DECLINE TO ISSUE
Petitioner does not cite any authority, and the Court is aware of none, which determined that the cases from the United States Supreme Court upon which Petitioner relies are new rules of constitutional law that are retroactively applicable. It, therefore, appears that Petitioner would not meet the requirements for filing a successive motion pursuant to § 2255. However, the mere failure to meet the statutory bar for successive motions does not render the remedy under § 2255 inadequate or ineffective pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and
(h). See, Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d at 1055.
The Court takes judicial notice of the docket, and of Respondent's motion to dismiss filed on October 27, 2011, in Ferdinand Richard Balcar v. Richard B. Ives, 2:11-00669-KM-DAD. (Doc. 17, 6-9.)*fn1 In that action, the Respondent summarized the record facts of the four bank robberies of which Petitioner was convicted, including but not limited to two robberies of the United States Bank and one of a Bank of America, institutions which have not been shown not to have been federally insured. Petitioner's assertion that no evidence of jurisdiction was set forth is conclusional and does not foreclose an inference in favor of the judgment. In any event, it does not amount to a demonstration that in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Further, Petitioner does not claim or demonstrate that he was factually innocent of the robberies for which the sentence he challenges was imposed. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden of establishing actual innocence.
Likewise, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he was obstructed in his effort to set forth his claim. In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim, it must be determined whether the petitioner's claim did not become available until after a federal court decision. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. A court will determine 1) whether the legal basis for petitioner's claim "did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion," and 2) whether the law changed in any way relevant to petitioner's claim after that first § 2255 motion. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2008); Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d at 1060--61.