Le Chabrier v. Matevousian

Filing 7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/24/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/25/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lrcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LANA LECHABRIER,

Case No. 14-cv-02309-JD

Movant,
8
v.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

9
10

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Movant, a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Dublin has filed a pro se petition for a writ

13
14

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
DISCUSSION

15
16
17

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court must determine at the outset whether a petition filed by a federal prisoner is

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because congress has given jurisdiction over

19

these petitions to different courts. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2000).

20

A petition under § 2241 must be heard in the district of confinement, whereas if the petition is

21

properly brought under § 2255, it must be heard by the sentencing court. Id. at 865.

22

A federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement must generally rely

23

on a § 2255 motion to do so. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The

24

general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a federal

25

prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255

26

motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (citation omitted)). There

27

is, however, an exception to that general rule. Under the “escape hatch” of § 2255, a federal

28

prisoner may file a § 2241 petition if, and only if, the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or

1

ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have

2

held that a prisoner may file a § 2241 petition under the escape hatch when the prisoner “(1)

3

makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at

4

presenting that claim.” Id. at 898 (internal quotation marks omitted).

5

II.

6

LEGAL CLAIMS
Movant was found guilty after trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern

7

District of California in Case No. 08-cr-0427 MCE EFB. Movant filed a § 2255 motion, but it

8

was denied without prejudice as it had been filed prior to sentencing and judgment being entered.

9

Docket Nos. 638, 670 in Case No. 08-cr-0427 MCE EFB. Sentencing occurred on July 12, 2012,
and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction on February 11, 2014. U.S. v. Popov, 555 Fed.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Appx. 671 (9th Cir. 2014). In this petition, movant raises claims regarding due process violations

12

at trial, malicious prosecution, judicial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. These

13

claims are more appropriately brought in a § 2255 motion as they challenge the legality of the

14

confinement. While movant has already brought a § 2255 motion, that motion was denied without

15

prejudice, so movant may bring another § 2255 motion in the district of conviction. Nor does

16

movant qualify for the “escape hatch” as there is no claim of actual innocence and there still exists

17

a procedural avenue to present the claims. Therefore, this case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern

18

District of California.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14-cv-02309-JD-_trn

2