Oaks v. Copenhaver
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction ;re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Tyrone S. Oaks ; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/3/14. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2014 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TYRONE S. OAKS,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVER,
Respondent.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:14-cv-00703 LJO GSA HC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
17
18
19
20
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. He
21
challenges his 2008 conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for
22
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1). He states he appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of
23
Appeals and the appeal was denied. He states he then filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
24
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The § 2255 motion was denied. He
25
states he then filed a second motion under § 2255 but the motion was denied as successive. He filed a
26
petition for relief in the Eighth Circuit, and the court denied the petition in full.
27
28
1
1
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 12, 2014. He claims that
2
due to the Supreme Court‟s recent statutory interpretation of what constitutes a prior conviction under
3
the Armed Career Criminal Act, he is now sentenced above the statutory maximum allowed by law.
4
DISCUSSION
5
A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal
6
conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence
7
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); see also Stephens v.
8
Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1313 (2007); Thompson v. Smith,
9
719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997); Broussard v.
10
Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing court has
11
jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or
12
sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v.
13
United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v.
14
Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980).
15
In contrast, a prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence's
16
execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where
17
the petitioner is in custody. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65
18
(9th Cir.2000) (per curiam); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990); Capaldi v.
19
Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.
20
1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925
21
F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United
22
States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987). “The general rule is that a motion under 28
23
U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention,
24
and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under
25
28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897 (citations omitted).
26
As Petitioner acknowledges, an exception exists by which a federal prisoner may seek relief
27
under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective
28
to test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting
2
1
28 U.S.C. § 2255); see Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a
2
very narrow exception. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003). The remedy under §
3
2255 usually will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was
4
denied, or because a remedy under that section is procedurally barred. See Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct.
5
3, 5 (1964) (a court‟s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.);
6
Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63 (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255
7
petition inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229
8
F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1956).
9
The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 2255 provides an „inadequate and ineffective‟ remedy
10
(and thus that the petitioner may proceed under Section 2241) when the petitioner: (1) makes a claim
11
of actual innocence; and, (2) has never had an „unobstructed procedural shot‟ at presenting the claim.
12
Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or
13
ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir.1963).
14
In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his federal sentence
15
as imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, rather than an error in the
16
administration of his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a motion
17
pursuant to § 2255 in the District of Minnesota, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court.
18
Petitioner acknowledges this fact, but argues he should be allowed to pass through the savings clause
19
because his prior § 2255 motion was denied as successive. The argument is unavailing. As noted
20
above, the remedy under § 2255 usually will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely because
21
the remedy under that section is procedurally barred. Aronson, 85 S.Ct. at 5. In addition, Petitioner
22
states he presented his claims to the Eighth Circuit and the petition was denied. Therefore, Petitioner
23
fails to show that he has never had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims.
24
Moreover, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify under the savings clause
25
of Section 2255 because Petitioner's claims are not proper claims of “actual innocence.” In the Ninth
26
Circuit, a claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings clause is tested by the
27
standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614
28
(1998). Stephens, 464 U.S. at 898. In Bousley, the Supreme Court explained that, “[t]o establish actual
3
1
innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that
2
no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks
3
omitted). Petitioner bears the burden of proof on this issue by a preponderance of the evidence, and he
4
must show not just that the evidence against him was weak, but that it was so weak that “no reasonable
5
juror” would have convicted him. Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 954. In this case, Petitioner does not assert
6
that he is factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Rather, he takes issue with his
7
sentence. Under the savings clause, Petitioner must demonstrate that he is actually innocent of the
8
crime for which he has been convicted, not the sentence imposed. See Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060;
9
Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 954 (to establish jurisdiction under Section 2241, petitioner must allege that he
10
is “„actually innocent‟ of the crime of conviction”); Edwards v. Daniels, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11
94750, at *7, 2006 WL 3877525 (D.Or.2006) (“Petitioner's assertion that he is actually innocent of a
12
portion of his sentence does not qualify him for the „escape hatch‟ of § 2255 because he must allege
13
that he is „legally innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted,‟ not the sentence imposed.”),
14
adopted by Edwards v. Daniels, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12356, 2007 WL 608115 (D.Or.2007).
15
Therefore, the instant § 2241 petition does not fit within the exception to the general bar against using
16
Section 2241 to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence imposed by a federal court. See Lorentsen,
17
223 F.3d at 954 (declining to decide whether federal prisoners who are actually innocent may resort to
18
Section 2241 when relief is not available under Section 2255 because the petitioner had not shown
19
actual innocence); see also Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898-99 (concluding that, although petitioner satisfied
20
the requirement of not having had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his instructional
21
error claim under Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 (1999), petitioner could not satisfy
22
the actual innocence requirement as articulated in Bousley and, thus, failed to properly invoke the
23
escape hatch exception of Section 2255); Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959 (“[A] motion meets the escape
24
hatch criteria of § 2255 „when a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had
25
an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim.‟”).
26
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Section 2255
27
constitutes an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy for raising his claims. Section 2241 is not the
28
4
1
proper statute for raising Petitioner's claims, and the petition should be dismissed for lack of
2
jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION
3
4
5
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
6
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O‟Neill, United
7
States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304
8
of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
9
Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the
10
Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and
11
Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge‟s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
12
636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
13
the right to appeal the District Court‟s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 3, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?