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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?