(HC) Chen v. Warden, USP Atwater

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIA WU CHEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00153-EPG-HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Respondent. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Jia Wu Chen is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), the undersigned recommends dismissal of the petition. I. Petitioner is currently housed at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.1) On February 2, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant petition wherein he challenges his conviction after pleading guilty to hostage taking in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. (Id.) Petitioner asserts that the failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance and failure to notify the consulate upon his arrest and detention as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations “rendered the judgment void, in violation of his Sixth Amend. right to counsel and Fifth Amend. right to notice guaranteed by Due process under the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) II. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Thus, a district court must address the threshold question whether a petition was properly brought under § 2241 or § 2255 in order to determine whether the district court has jurisdiction. Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal conviction or sentence must do so by moving the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). “The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, a “savings clause” or “escape hatch” exists in § 2255(e) by which a federal prisoner may seek relief under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 to be “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1047 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864–65. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The

2 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 remedy under § 2255 usually will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was denied, or because a remedy under § 2255 is procedurally barred. Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1059. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). A petitioner may proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause when the petitioner “(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (citing Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060). With respect to the first requirement, in the Ninth Circuit a claim of actual innocence for purposes of the § 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. In Bousley, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]o establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With respect to the second requirement, “it is not enough that the petitioner is presently barred from raising his claim of innocence by motion under § 2255. He must never have had the opportunity to raise it by motion.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060. In determining whether a petitioner never had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim, the Court considers “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion;’ and (2) whether the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060– 61). Here, Petitioner does not make a claim of actual innocence. Petitioner’s claim regarding the failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance and the failure to notify the consulate upon his arrest and detention challenges the legal sufficiency of Petitioner’s conviction rather than “demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, Petitioner does not establish that he has not had an unobstructed raised in the instant petition “did not arise until after Petitioner exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion,” and there is no indication that “the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060-61). Il. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to the present matter. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2024 [Je hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE