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).

Download PDF
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

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?