Harry Edwin Miles v. Steven Langford

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITYby Judge Christina A. Snyder. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HARRY EDWIN MILES,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

v.
STEVEN LANGFORD, WARDEN,
Respondent.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 17-6739-CAS (PJW)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION WITH PREJUDICE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

17

Institution, Lompoc, California.

18

attempt in this court to challenge his 2005 conviction on drug charges

19

and resultant 360-month sentence in the United States District Court

20

for the Central District of Illinois.

21

petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

22

claiming that the district court in Illinois did not have jurisdiction

23

to hear his case because Congress had not properly enacted the

24

legislation that authorized district courts to hear criminal cases.

25

He argued further that he had not been given an opportunity to raise

26

this claim through the normal habeas process set forth in 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 2255 and, therefore, he should be allowed to proceed under § 2241.

28

The instant Petition is his fourth

In May 2010, he filed a

1

In February 2011, the Court dismissed the petition.

2

States of America, CV 10-3587-CAS (PJW), February 1, 2011 Order.)

3

(Miles v. United

In November 2012, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of

4

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release on the

5

ground that the district court in Illinois had recently granted his

6

“motion to dismiss.”

7

petition, finding that Petitioner had erroneously interpreted the

8

district court’s dismissal of his petition as a dismissal of his

9

criminal conviction.

10

On November 28, 2012, the Court dismissed that

(Miles v. Ives, CV 12-10032-CAS (PJW), November

28, 2012 Order.)

11

In December 2014, Petitioner filed a third habeas petition,

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming once again that he was entitled

13

to habeas relief because Congress did not lawfully enact the statute

14

granting district courts jurisdiction over criminal cases.

15

dismissed that petition.

16

December 15, 2014 Order.)

17

The Court

(Miles v. Warden, CV 14-9451-CAS (PJW),

On September 13, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petition,

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that he is entitled to release

19

because his 2005 conviction is null and void.

20

constitutional rights were violated before his trial in the district

21

court in Illinois when he was not given an opportunity to challenge

22

the composition of the Grand Jury that indicted him and when his plea

23

of not guilty was taken by a magistrate judge at his arraignment.

24

(Petition at 4-8.)

25

United States attorney, district judge, and defense counsel in

26

Illinois all conspired against him.

27

following reasons, the petition is dismissed.

He contends that his

He further contends that the magistrate judge,

28
2

(Petition at 8-9.)

For the

1

As the Court has repeatedly advised Petitioner, he may not attack

2

his conviction and sentence in the district of his confinement by way

3

of a § 2241 petition.

4

Cir. 2008) (“As a general rule, § 2255 provides the exclusive

5

procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality

6

of detention”) (citation omitted).

7

to show that he qualifies for the exception to this general rule.

8

id. at 959 (noting “escape hatch” exception is available when

9

petitioner makes a claim of actual innocence and has not had an

See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th

Nor has Petitioner even attempted

10

unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim).

11

See

his action is subject to dismissal.

12

Consequently,

Petitioner argues that his § 2241 petition may not be

13

“recharacterized” as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is

14

challenging his unlawful imprisonment, not his sentence.

15

2-3.)

16

his imprisonment is unlawful rests on the premise that his conviction

17

was invalid.

18

the district of his conviction.

19

F.3d 895, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding petitioner’s challenge to

20

conviction may not proceed under § 2241, but only under § 2255).1

21

That argument is rejected.

(Petition at

Plainly, Petitioner’s argument that

That challenge may only be brought as a § 2255 motion in
See, e.g., Stephens v. Herrera, 464

Furthermore, because Petitioner has not made a substantial

22

showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the Court

23

erred in its rulings, he is not entitled to a certificate of

24

appealability.

25

Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Where

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);

26
27
28

1

Because Petitioner is not entitled to relief, his “Motion for
Release on Personal Recognizance or Unsecured Bond Pending Resolution
of Habeas Corpus Petition” is denied.
3

1

a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’

2

§ 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal the denial of that

3

petition absent a [certificate of appealability][.]”).

4
5

DATED: September 25, 2017

6
7

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Presented by:
24
25
26

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

H:\CASNYDER\R&R & Related - 194\Magistrate Orders\LA17CV06739CASPJW-O.wpd

4