Begay v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER: the Court's Notice of Assignment (Doc. 2 in CV-15-08209-PCT-PGR (JZB)) is vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant Begay's Petition for a Writ of Audita Querela (Doc. 91 in CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR) is denied and the civil action opened in connection with the petition (CV-15-08209-PCT-PGR (JZB)) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability, to the exten t that one is required, shall not be issued and that the movant is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right and would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/8/15. (EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America
10

Plaintiff,
11

vs.
12

Ivan Ray Begay,
13

Defendant/Movant.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-15-08209-PCT-PGR (JZB)
No. CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR

ORDER

16

On October 1, 2015, movant Ivan Ray Begay, who is incarcerated in the

17

Federal Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas, filed a pro se Petition for Writ

18

of Audita Querela, Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Doc.1 in CV-15-

19

08209 and Doc. 91 in CR-00-01222). In his petition, Begay seeks to be re-

20

sentenced, arguing that his sentence, which was entered on September 17, 2001,

21

was enhanced under the then-mandatory federal sentencing guidelines which were

22

subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v.

23

Booker, 542 U.S. 220 (2005).1 The Court finds that the petition should be summarily

24
25
26

1

Begay filed essentially the same petition on March 23, 2013 in CV-1308062, which the Court dismissed with prejudice in an order (Doc. 3) entered on
June 11, 2013.

1

denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2

Begay’s claim that he is entitled to a writ of audita querela to obtain re-

3

sentencing in light of Booker has been conclusively foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit,

4

which has repeatedly held that a federal prisoner may not challenge a sentence by

5

way of a petition for a writ of audita querela when that challenge is cognizable

6

through a § 2255 habeas petition. United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077,

7

1080 (9th Cir.2001) (also holding that the fact that a second or successive § 2255

8

motion may be barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) does not permit

9

circumvention of the statute by styling a second or successive petition as a petition

10

for a writ of audita querela.); see also, Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888,

11

890 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that the statutory limits on second or successive habeas

12

petitions and cases such as Booker which do not apply on collateral review do not

13

create a gap in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with common law

14

writs.) Begay’s petition is in reality a second or successive motion pursuant to §

15

2255 which the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate since Begay has not obtained

16

from the Ninth Circuit the certification required by § 2255. Therefore,

17
18

IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s Notice of Assignment (Doc. 2 in CV15-08209-PCT-PGR (JZB)) is vacated.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant Begay’s Petition for a Writ of Audita

20

Querela (Doc. 91 in CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR) is denied and the civil action opened

21

in connection with the petition (CV-15-08209-PCT-PGR (JZB)) is dismissed for lack

22

of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

accordingly.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability, to the extent that

25

one is required, shall not be issued and that the movant is not entitled to appeal in

26

-2-

1

forma pauperis because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the

2

petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right and would not find

3

the Court’s procedural ruling debatable.

4

DATED this 8th day of October, 2015.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-3-