Le Chabrier v. Matevousian

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/16/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LANA LE CHABRIER,

Case No. 14-cv-05506-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Lana Le Chabrier, a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Dublin has filed a pro se petition

13
14

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

15

DISCUSSION

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).
II.
LEGAL CLAIMS

5

Chabrier was found guilty after trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern
6

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

7

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

8

Docket Nos. 638, 670 in Case No. 08-cr-0427 MCE EFB. Sentencing occurred on July 12, 2012,

9

and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction on February 11, 2014. U.S. v. Popov, 555 Fed.

10
11

Appx. 671 (9th Cir. 2014). In this petition, she raises claims regarding due process violations at
trial, malicious prosecution, judicial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. These

United States District Court
Northern District of California

claims are more appropriately brought in a § 2255 motion as they challenge the legality of the
12
13

confinement. While Chabrier has already brought a § 2255 motion, that motion was denied
without prejudice, so she may bring another § 2255 motion in the district of conviction. Nor does

14

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

15

procedural avenue to present the claims.
Chabrier previously brought a § 2241 petition in this district that was nearly identical to

16
17
18

this petition and raised the exact same claims. Case No. 14-cv-2309-JD. That case was
transferred to the Eastern District of California where is continues as a § 2255 motion. See Case
No. 2:14-cv-01624-GEB-AC. The appeal of the handling of the § 2255 case in the Eastern

19

District was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Chabrier’s petition for writ of mandamus filed

20

with respect to Case No. 14-cv-2309-JD was also denied by the Ninth Circuit. For all these

21

reasons this case is dismissed.

22
23

III.

CONCLUSION
1.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED.

24
25
26

2. The case is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.

27

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

28
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2015
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LANA LE CHABRIER,

Case No. 14-cv-05506-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 3/16/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Lana Le Chabrier ID: #55212-112
2231 W Street
c/o Donna Kilpatrick
Sacramento, CA 95818

20
21

Dated: 3/16/2015

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4