Opinion ID: 219133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court Has Appellate Jurisdiction Despite the Lack of a Certificate of Appealability

Text: At the threshold, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider Alaimalo's appeal from the dismissal of his February 2008 petition without a COA. [1] As a general rule, [section] 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000). To challenge a sentence that was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, a federal prisoner may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A prisoner may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the Ninth Circuit or the district court issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). However, a federal prisoner may file a habeas petition under § 2241 if the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C § 2255(e); see also Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir.2008). This is called the savings clause or escape hatch of § 2255. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 956. A petition meets the escape hatch criteria where a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a disguised § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal the denial of that petition absent a COA; a valid § 2241 petition, however, must be considered, even absent a COA. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 958-59. Because we retain jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction, we proceed to consider whether the district court was correct in determining that [Alaimalo's] pleading, framed as a § 2241 petition, did not qualify for the escape hatch of § 2255. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959 (quotation marks omitted). We review the dismissal of a habeas petition de novo. Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1059.
To establish actual innocence for the purposes of habeas relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998)). A petitioner is actually innocent when he was convicted for conduct not prohibited by law. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) (summarizing the tests employed by the circuit courts to determine actual innocence). Alaimalo has made a showing of actual innocence. He was convicted of importing methamphetamine from California to Guam, which Cabaccang held is not a crime. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d at 637. Further, we note that the government does not contest Alaimalo's actual innocence.
We turn to the question of whether Alaimalo's actual innocence claim was unavailable to him during his direct appeal and his first § 2255 motion. In making this determination, we consider (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, 519 F.3d at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted). An intervening court decision must effect a material change in the applicable law to establish unavailability. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960. See also In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 607, 610 (7th Cir.1998) (holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), effected a material change in the law because the circuit previously held that accessability of a firearm was enough to support an inference that a firearm was used in a drug crime, whereas Bailey required active employment of the firearm); Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.1997); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997). In contrast, a decision that simply provides further clarification of the statute of conviction without materially vary[ing] from the statutory construction set forth in previous case law does not effect such a change. See Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000), did not effect a material change in the law but only clarified a prior Supreme Court decision and two Ninth Circuit opinions consistent with Jones 's holding). We hold that Cabaccang effected a material change in the law applicable to Alaimalo's case, such that the legal basis for his actual innocence claim did not become available until Cabaccang was decided. Prior to Cabaccang, the Ninth Circuit twice held that transporting drugs between Guam and another United States territory constituted importation because it required traveling through international waters or airspace. See Sugiyama, 846 F.2d at 572; Perez, 776 F.2d at 801. Cabaccang expressly overruled settled law. 332 F.3d at 635 (To the extent that Sugiyama and Perez address the transport of drugs through international airspace on a nonstop domestic flight, they are overruled.). Alaimalo could not have raised his claim of innocence in an effective fashion prior to Cabaccang, at which point he had already exhausted his direct appeal and § 2255 motion. See Triestman 124 F.3d at 379; Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610; contra Harrison, 519 F.3d at 961 (noting that case law at the time of petitioner's direct appeal and first § 2255 invited the very argument raised in the purported § 2241 petition); Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 958, 963 (8th Cir.2004) (holding that where petitioner's § 2255 motion was still pending at the time the Supreme Court effected a material change in the applicable law, he had an unobstructed chance to raise his actual innocence claim in the pending petition). The government argues that Alaimalo's actual innocence claim was available after 1996, when the First Circuit held that transporting drugs over international waters did not constitute importation within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). See United States v. Ramirez-Ferrer, 82 F.3d 1131, 1144 (1st Cir.1996) (en banc). We disagree. For the purposes of determining whether a claim was unavailable under § 2241, we look to whether controlling law in this circuit foreclosed petitioner's argument. See, e.g., In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000) (a claim is not available when settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of conviction....) (emphasis added); Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610 (holding that when the law of the circuit was so firmly against him, petitioner did not have to raise an issue to preserve it as a basis for collateral attack later on). The mere possibility that the Ninth Circuit would overrule its previous holdings en banc did not make Alaimalo's actual innocence claim available to him for the purposes of § 2241. If it did, there would be a legal basis for any actual innocence claim that is currently foreclosed by binding Ninth Circuit law, as there is always the infinitesimally small possibility of sudden en banc reversal. [2] Requiring a petitioner to raise all theoretically possible actual innocence claims in his first § 2255 motion would put an unreasonable burden on petitioners and the courts. It would just clog the judicial pipes to require defendants, on pain of forfeiting all right to benefit from future changes in the law, to include challenges to settled law in their briefs on appeal and in postconviction filings. Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610. In sum, because Alaimalo did not have an unobstructed chance to present his innocence claim in his first § 2255 motion, he may now raise that claim in a § 2241 petition without a certificate of appealability. We have jurisdiction over Alaimalo's appeal of the dismissal of his February 2008 § 2241 petition.