(HC) Wilson v. Thompson

Filing 16

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/6/2021 VACATING 14 Findings and Recommendations. Also, RECOMMENDING that respondent's motion to dismiss 8 be granted; and the 2241 petition be dismissed. Motion 8 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CORNELL EUGENE WILSON, JR.,

12

No. 2:20-cv-1294 JAM KJN P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

P. THOMPSON, Warden, FCI-Herlong,

15

ORDER AND AMENDED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

17
18

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On April 6, 2021, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations

19

recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. Petitioner filed objections. Due

20

to a typographical error, and additional information obtained from the sentencing court docket,

21

the prior findings and recommendations are vacated. 1 As set forth below, the undersigned again

22

recommends that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

23

I. Background
Following jury trial, petitioner was convicted on June 1, 2001, as charged: Count 1 -

24
25

Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371; Count 2 - Armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113; Count 3 - Using

26
27
28

1

The phrase “as petitioner does here” should not have been included in the section explaining
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) As discussed below, subsequent review of the sentencing court
docket reveals that petitioner already sought, and was denied, the relief he seeks in this action.
1

1

or Carrying a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); Count 4 Armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113; and

2

Count 5 - Using or carrying a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). United States v. Wilson, No. CR-00-

3

01025-NM (C.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 132). 2 On September 17, 2001, he was sentenced to federal

4

prison for the following: count one - 60 months, count two - 262 months, count three - 84

5

months, count four - 262 months, and count five - 300 months. Id. (ECF No. 174.) Counts one,

6

two, and four were concurrent terms (sum of 262 months), and counts three and five were

7

consecutive terms (sum of 384 months), for a total term of incarceration of 646 months (custody

8

of 262 plus 384 months). Id. The sentencing court also ordered petitioner to pay a $100.00

9

special assessment for every conviction (five counts x $100 = $500.00) under 18 U.S.C. § 3013.

10

Wilson, No. CR-00-1025 NM (ECF No. 174) (“Defendant is ordered to pay a special assessment

11

of $500.00.”). Petitioner was represented by counsel at trial and at sentencing.
On February 23, 2005, petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

12
13

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Wilson v. United States, No. CV 05-1367 NM (C.D. Cal.). On

14

June 23, 2005, the § 2255 motion was denied on the merits. Id. (ECF No. 7.) On June 25, 2014,

15

petitioner filed a second pro se § 2255 motion, which was dismissed as successive on October 14,

16

2014. Id. (ECF Nos. 13, 21.)

17

On November 20, 2015, petitioner filed a third pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or

18

correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Wilson v. United States, No. 2:15-cv-10025-JFW (C.D.

19

Cal.). The Ninth Circuit granted authorization to file a second or successive motion. Id. (ECF

20

No. 2.) The Central District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, and found that

21

petitioner’s conviction for robbery under California Penal Code § 211 is categorically a “crime of

22

violence,” and was properly used to determine that petitioner was a career offender. Id. (ECF No.

23

43.)

24

On September 26, 2019, petitioner filed a Rule 36 request in the Central District of

25

California, alleging that special assessments were wrongfully imposed for two of his five counts

26

2

27
28

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285
F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both
within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
matters at issue”) (internal quotation omitted).
2

1

of conviction constituting multiple punishments, and asking the sentencing court to reduce the

2

special assessments from $500.00 to $300.00, and to reimburse petitioner the overpaid sum of

3

$200.00. Wilson, Case No. 2:00-cr-01025 JFW (ECF No. 357 at 4-5.) Petitioner relied on

4

Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996). Case No. 2:00-cr-01025 JFW (ECF No. 357 at

5

5.) The sentencing court denied petitioner’s motion without comment. Id. (ECF No. 360.)

6

II. The Instant Petition

7

Petitioner alleges that the Central District of California wrongfully imposed special

8

assessments for two of his five counts of conviction, improperly ordering special assessments for

9

his three concurrent custodial sentences. Petitioner argues that when the special assessment was

10

imposed twice for the same act, it is a collateral consequence imposing an “impermissible double

11

punishment.” (ECF No. 1 at 7.) As relief, petitioner asks for reimbursement of the $200.00

12

overpaid assessment, and to “correct the judgment/record.” (ECF No. 1 at 8.)

13

III. Jurisdiction

14

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a prisoner in custody under the

15

authority of the United States who shows that his custody violates the Constitution, laws, or

16

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A federal prisoner who challenges the

17

validity or constitutionality of his underlying conviction must file a motion to vacate the sentence

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), cert.

19

denied, 549 U.S. 1313 (2007). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Tripati

20

v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th

21

Cir. 2000). Generally, a prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by

22

way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United

23

States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162.

24

On the other hand, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of

25

the execution of a sentence, must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Harrison v.

27

Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). Section 2241 is the vehicle for challenging the BOP’s

28

application or calculation of the sentence imposed by the district court, including any credit it
3

1

applies for presentence detention. Fraley v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.

2

1993).

3

In any event, an exception to the general rule, known as the § 2255(e) “escape hatch,”

4

permits a federal prisoner to “file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 to contest the

5

legality of a sentence where his remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the

6

legality of his detention.’” Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65 (quoting § 2255(e)). “[I]f, and only if,

7

the remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention’” may a

8

prisoner proceed under § 2241. Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012); see 28

9

U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Ivy v.

10

Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The exception will not apply “merely because

11

section 2255’s gatekeeping provisions,” such as the statute of limitations or the limitation on

12

successive petitions, now prevent the courts from considering a § 2255 motion. Ivy, 328 F.3d at

13

1059 (ban on unauthorized or successive petitions does not per se make § 2255 inadequate or

14

ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

15

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.).

16

The Ninth Circuit has held that § 2255 provides an ‘inadequate and ineffective’ remedy

17

(and thus that the petitioner may proceed under Section 2241 when the petitioner: (1) makes a

18

claim of actual innocence; and (2) has never had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting

19

the claim. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959; Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. The burden is on the petitioner

20

to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83

21

(9th Cir. 1963). If a petitioner fails to meet this burden, then his § 2241 petition must be

22

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060.

23

Discussion

24

Petitioner claims that two of the special assessments included in the criminal judgment

25

were imposed in error, challenging the sentence imposed by the court in the Central District.

26

Because such claim involves the validity and constitutionality of his sentence, the claim must be

27

raised in the Central District of California where petitioner was convicted. Stephens, 464 F.3d at

28

897.
4

1

Petitioner has not met his burden to show he qualifies for the escape hatch clause of

2

§ 2255(e). Petitioner makes no claim or showing of actual innocence. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 956

3

(actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency). Petitioner fails to

4

demonstrate he was deprived of an opportunity to present such claim to the sentencing court.

5

Indeed, petitioner already raised such claim in a Rule 36 request, which the sentencing court

6

denied.

7

In his opposition, petitioner argues that he could not include such claim in his initial

8

§ 2255 motion because he was “denied effective assistance of counsel on collateral review.”

9

(ECF No. 13 at 6.) However, petitioner was not represented by counsel when he filed his initial

10

§ 2255. Wilson, No. 2:05-cv-01367-JFW. Moreover, his initial pro se § 2255 motion raised

11

multiple claims, and petitioner includes no facts demonstrating why he could not include the

12

instant claim in the § 2255 motion. 3
Therefore, petitioner is not eligible for the “escape hatch” of § 2241, and the petition

13
14

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

15

IV. Transfer?
The undersigned considered whether this action should be transferred to the sentencing

16
17

court rather than dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Transfer is appropriate under Section 1631 if

18

three conditions are satisfied: (1) the transferring court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the transferee court

19

could have exercised jurisdiction at the time the action was filed; and (3) the transfer is in the

20

interest of justice. See Cruz-Aguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The federal

21

transfer statute is applicable in habeas proceedings.”).

22

The undersigned declines to recommend transfer to the Central District of California.

23

First, the sentencing court already denied petitioner’s requested relief. Second, as set forth above,

24

petitioner previously filed § 2255 motions in the sentencing court. Petitioner must first obtain

25

authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive motion. See

26
27
28

3

Moreover, petitioner is not entitled to counsel on collateral review. See Pennsylvania v. Finely,
481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (no right to counsel on collateral review).
5

1

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[a]

2

petitioner is generally limited to one motion under § 2255”). Therefore, the instant petition

3

should be dismissed rather than transferred.

4
5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the April 6, 2021 findings
and recommendations (ECF No. 14) are vacated.

6

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

7

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) be granted; and

8

2. The § 2241 petition be dismissed.

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

11

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

12

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 4 Such a document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

14

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

15

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

16

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

Dated: July 15, 2021

18
19

/wils2241.mtd..2241.r

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

A certificate of appealability is not required for an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Harrison v.
Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008).
6