(HC) Drister v. Arviza

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 LEONARD O. DRISTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-01109-EPG-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS

13 M. ARVIZA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Leonard O. Drister is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 17 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As Petitioner’s statutory claims cannot be 18 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the undersigned recommends that the petition be 19 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Mendota, 23 California. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)1 In the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner 24 challenges the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of 25 Ohio, asserting that he is actually innocent in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions 26 Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 27 (2016). (ECF No. 1 at 1, 6–7.) 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. Hernandez 4 v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The Ninth Circuit has “consistently 5 held that ‘motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the 6 sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 7 sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.’” Pinson v. 8 Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 2023 WL 3876485, at *6 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Hernandez, 204 F.3d 9 at 864). “Thus, in order to determine whether jurisdiction is proper, a court must first determine 10 whether a habeas petition is filed pursuant to § 2241 or § 2255 before proceeding to any other 11 issue.” Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. 12 “The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by 13 which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the 14 availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” 15 Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, a 16 “savings clause” or “escape hatch” exists in § 2255(e) by which a federal prisoner may seek 17 relief under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 to be “inadequate or 18 ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). 19 In a recent decision, the Supreme Court held “that § 2255(e)’s saving clause does not 20 permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent 21 AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” Jones 22 v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1864 (2023). 23 Section 2255(h) specifies the two limited conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or 24 successive collateral attacks on their sentences. The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy those conditions does not 25 mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all. 26 27 Jones, 143 S. Ct. at 1869. 1 Here, Petitioner has filed a § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause in light of 2 Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 3 (2016). In Descamps, the Supreme Court “granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit split on whether 4 the modified categorical approach applies to statutes like § 459 that contain a single, ‘indivisible’ 5 set of elements sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic offense.” 570 U.S. at 260. 6 In Mathis, the question was whether the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), “makes 7 an exception to that rule when a defendant is convicted under a statute that lists multiple, 8 alternative means of satisfying one (or more) of its elements.” 579 U.S. at 503. Both Descamps 9 and Mathis concern issues of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, the Court finds that Jones 10 precludes Petitioner from bringing statutory Descamps and Mathis claims in a § 2241 petition 11 pursuant to the savings clause. See Jones, 143 S. Ct. at 1864 (Section “2255(e)’s saving clause 12 does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to 13 circumvent AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 14 petition.”).2 15 III. 16 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 17 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 19 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly ASSIGN a District Court Judge to 20 the present matter. 21 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 22 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 23 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 24 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 25 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 26 2 This conclusion does not prevent Petitioner from attempting to pursue his claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or 27 correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court. The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of Petitioner’s claims or whether the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for such a § 2255 motion are 1 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 2 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 3 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 5 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8} Dated: _ August 18, 2023 [Je heey —— 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28