Daniel Dewayne Aikens v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL DEWAYNE AIKENS, ) Case No.: 1:26-cv-02281-FJS (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 ) DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 15 DOERER, ) CORPUS ) 16 Respondent. ) [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] ) 17

18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the 20 United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. He filed the instant federal petition on March 23, 21 2026, challenging his conviction. (Doc. 1.) For reasons that follow, the Court finds that it lacks 22 jurisdiction to consider his claims. Therefore, the Court recommends the petition be DISMISSED. 23 I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 24 Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 25 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The provisions of Rule 4, which 26 are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), provide in pertinent part: “If it plainly appears from 27 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 28 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” The Advisory Committee 1 Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its 2 own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 3 petition has been filed. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 On November 18, 2022, Petitioner was found guilty by jury trial in the United States District 6 Court for the Western District of Louisiana of three counts of making a destructive device, in violation 7 of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(f); three counts of possession of an unlawful destructive device, in violation of 26 8 U.S.C. § 5861(c); one count of use of an explosive device to commit a felony, in violation of 18 9 U.S.C. § 844(h); and one count of conveying false information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). 10 United States v. Aikens, Case No. 1:20-cr-00023-DDD-JPM-1 (W.D. La. 2022) (Docs. 123-124). On 11 March 29, 2023, he was sentenced to 192 months in prison. (Id., Doc. 145.) 12 Petitioner appealed, and on December 4, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed 13 judgment. United States v. Aikens, 2024 WL 4973302 (5th Cir. 2024). 14 On November 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2255. Aikens, Case No. 1:20-cr-00023-DDD-JPM-1 (Doc. 213). The motion is currently pending 16 before the District Court in the Western District of Louisiana. 17 On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this Court. Petitioner 18 challenges his underlying conviction, claiming he is actually innocent of his crime of using explosives 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 844(h). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal 22 conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 469 (2023); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 24 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); see also Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.2006), cert. 25 denied, 549 U.S. 1313 (2007). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 26 F.2d at 1163; Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Generally, a prisoner may 27 not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jones, 599 U.S. at 469; Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th 1 Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th 2 Cir.1980). 3 In contrast, a prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence’s 4 execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where 5 the petitioner is in custody. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. “The general rule 6 is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test 7 the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be 8 avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897 (citations omitted). 9 An exception exists by which a federal prisoner may seek relief under § 2241, referred to as the 10 “savings clause” or “escape hatch” of § 2255. Jones, 599 U.S. at 474; Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 11 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65. “[T]he saving clause preserves recourse to 12 § 2241 in cases where unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the 13 sentencing court, as well as for challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence.” 14 Jones, 599 U.S. at 478. “[I]f - and only if – § 2255’s remedy by motion is ‘inadequate or ineffective to 15 test the legality of his detention’” may a prisoner proceed under § 2241. Jones, 599 U.S. at 471 16 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012). To show § 2255 17 constitutes an “inadequate and ineffective” remedy, a petitioner must: (1) make a claim of actual 18 innocence; and (2) show he has never had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting the claim. 19 Shephard v. Unknown Party, Warden, FCI Tucson, 5 F.4th 1075, 1076 (9th Cir. 2021); Ivy v. 20 Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059-1060 (9th Cir. 2003); Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959; Stephens, 464 F.3d at 21 898; accord Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1192. 22 Here, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he was denied an unobstructed procedural shot at 23 presenting his claims. To determine whether Petitioner never had an unobstructed procedural 24 opportunity to pursue his claim, the Court considers “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim 25 did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion; and (2) whether the 26 law changed in any way relevant to petitioner's claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 27 F.3d at 960 (quotations omitted); see also Jones, 599 U.S. at 477-78 (holding § 2241 is not available 28 for collateral attacks on federal sentences based on intervening changes in statutory interpretation 1 because § 2255(h) only allows second and successive § 2255 motions that rely on “newly discovery 2 evidence” or “a new rule of constitutional law”). 3 Petitioner states he was found guilty of manufacturing and possessing “destructive devices” 4 under 26 U.S.C. § 5861, which is a term incorporated in the definition of “firearm” under 26 U.S.C. 5 § 5845(a)(8). He then asserts that because of this conviction for “destructive devices,” he cannot be 6 convicted for “explosive materials” under 18 U.S.C. § 844(j). But section 844’s reference to 7 “explosive materials” (defined at 18 U.S.C. § 841(c)) neither incorporates “firearm” as that term is 8 used in section 5861, nor adopts that term’s incorporated “destructive device” in section 5845. And 9 more importantly, the factual basis for this claim was available during trial, appeal, and his section 10 2255 motion. Indeed, one of Plaintiff’s points on appeal concerned the district court’s alleged failure 11 to instruct the jury on the definition of a destructive device under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f), Aikens, 2024 12 WL 4973302, at *1, which underscores that Plaintiff’s instant reliance on the definitions of 13 “destructive devices” and “explosive materials” was not only available but known. There is no 14 indication that the legal basis for his claims did not arise until after that denial. Petitioner relies on no 15 subsequent change in law or new rule of constitutional law, nor does he rely on any newly discovered 16 evidence. Moreover, he is currently proceeding with a section 2255 motion in the court of conviction, 17 and this avenue of relief remains available to present his claim. Accordingly, Petitioner does not show 18 he was denied an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims. Thus, he fails to 19 demonstrate that his remedy under section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 20 detention.” Jones, 599 U.S. at 471. The petition does not qualify for the savings clause and should be 21 dismissed. 22 IV. ORDER 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United 24 States District Judge to this case. 25 V. RECOMMENDATION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 27 Corpus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 28 ] This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Loc: 3 || Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- 4 || one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file 5 || written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be 6 || captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed 7 || fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider 8 || exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party 9 || should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, 10 || or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page 11 || limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and 12 || Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 13 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 15 ||immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 16 || 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's 17 judgment. 18 19 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Le = 20 Dated: _ March 27, 2026 2 Z ZE, 21 FRANK J. SINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28