Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181030_0002015.WLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 08:57:10
Document Index: 543660292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Salazar-Trivino v. Director Bureau of Prisons
Salazar-Trivino v. Director Bureau of Prisons
ALEXIS SALAZAR-TRIVINO REG. # 61736-018
DIRECTOR BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.
Before the court is a pro se petition filed by Alexis Salazar-Trivino and other inmates, originally filed as a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Doc. 1. That court construed the petition as one requesting habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, severed it as to individual petitioners, and transferred the cases to the districts where petitioners were incarcerated. See doc. 34. Accordingly, this matter was transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi, where the petitioner is presently in custody, and finally to this court, where the petitioner's claims of improper confinement arose at the Federal Correctional Institute at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). Id.; doc. 45. It now comes before the undersigned for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.
Salazar-Trivino filed this action with several other inmates then incarcerated at FCIO, alleging that they were being improperly detained there. Doc. 1. Since that time, however, Salazar-Trivino was transferred to Adams County Correctional Center/Correctional Institute Adams County in Washington, Mississippi, a contract facility of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). A search of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator reveals that he is still in BOP custody. Salazar-Trivino declined to file a separate 2241 petitions on the forms provided in the Southern District of Mississippi. See docs. 39-41. Accordingly, the only allegations Salazar-Trivino has provided in support of his request for habeas relief are the general allegations in the original, collective petition that the petitioners' extradition to the United States from Central America and conviction here of various federal crimes amounts to a violation of constitutional rights and international law. Doc. 1.
A district court may apply any and all of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the petition must be dismissed.
B. Section 2241
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salazar-Trivino&#39;s petition, which appears to allege errors in his extradition proceedings and sentencing, is a collateral attack on his conviction. Such attacks are generally limited to a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255.[1]Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). A &sect; 2241 petition is properly construed as a &sect; 2255 motion if it seeks relief based on errors that occurred at trial or sentencing. Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877-78. Habeas relief based on ...