(HC) Saelua v. Ciolli

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 16, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01312
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEVI SAELUA, JR., ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01312-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. ) CORPUS ) 14 ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 CIOLLI, Warden, ) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE ) 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. 20 Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary in 21 Atwater, California. He filed the instant federal petition on September 14, 2020. As discussed below, 22 the Court will recommend that the petition be DISMISSED pursuant to the Court’s authority under 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On January 9, 2013, Petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the District 26 of Hawaii for several drug trafficking offenses along with seven co-defendants. See United States v. 27 Alisa, Case No. 1:13-cr-00021-SOM-3 (D. Hawaii). On July 26, 2013, Petitioner entered a plea 28 bargain and pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, 1 fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and a quantity of marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 2 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(D), 846). Id. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner waived his right to 3 appeal his conviction and sentence. Id. On November 14, 2013, Petitioner was sentenced to 300 4 months imprisonment. Id. 5 On May 16, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the 6 sentencing court. Id. On April 6, 2017, the district court denied the motion. The court noted the 7 recent decision in Beckles v. United States, 2017 WL 855781 (2017), in which the United States 8 Supreme Court held that defendants sentenced after the sentencing guidelines became advisory in 9 2005 could not challenge their sentences under § 2255 on the ground that, pursuant to Johnson v. 10 United States, 135 S. Ct. 2552 (2015), guidelines affecting the career offender calculation were 11 unconstitutionally vague. In light of Beckles, the court determined that Petitioner’s § 2255 motion 12 was without merit. 13 On September 14, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. He claims he is actually 14 innocent of the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement because his prior offenses do not 15 qualify as predicate offenses under Mathis v. United States, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), and 16 Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013). 17 DISCUSSION 18 I. Screening of Petition 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires the Court to make a preliminary 20 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 21 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 22 the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court 23 may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to 24 the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory 25 Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8. The Court will exercise its authority under Rule 4 in 26 recommending dismissal of the petition. 27

28 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts (Habeas Rules) are appropriately applied to 1 II. Jurisdiction 2 A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal 3 conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Stephens v. 5 Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1313 (2007). In such cases, only 6 the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163; Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 7 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Generally, a prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence 8 by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 9 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 10 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980). 11 In contrast, a prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence’s 12 execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where 13 the petitioner is in custody. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. “The general rule 14 is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test 15 the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be 16 avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897 (citations omitted). 17 An exception exists by which a federal prisoner may seek relief under § 2241, referred to as the 18 “savings clause” or “escape hatch” of § 2255. United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) 19 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); see Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez, 20 204 F.3d at 864-65. “[I]f, and only if, the remedy under § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the 21 legality of his detention’” may a prisoner proceed under § 2241. Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 22 (9th Cir. 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow 23 exception. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The exception will not apply 24 “merely because section 2255’s gatekeeping provisions,” such as the statute of limitations or the 25 limitation on successive petitions, now prevent the courts from considering a § 2255 motion. Id., 328 26 F.3d at 1059 (ban on unauthorized or successive petitions does not per se make § 2255 inadequate or 27 ineffective); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is 28 insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (per 1 curiam) (§ 2255 not inadequate or ineffective simply because the district court dismissed the § 2255 2 motion as successive and court of appeals did not authorize a successive motion). 3 The Ninth Circuit has held that Section 2255 provides an ‘inadequate and ineffective’ remedy 4 (and thus that the petitioner may proceed under Section 2241) when the petitioner: (1) makes a claim 5 of actual innocence; and, (2) has never had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting the claim. 6 Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959; Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898; accord Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1192. The burden 7 is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 8 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). If a petitioner fails to meet this burden, then his § 2241 petition must be 9 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060. 10 Here, Petitioner is challenging the validity and constitutionality of his sentence as imposed by 11 the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, rather than an error in the administration of 12 his sentence. Therefore, the appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 in the 13 Hawaii District Court, not a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in this Court. Petitioner acknowledges 14 this fact in his petition; however, he claims the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the savings clause, 15 because he is actually innocent of the sentencing enhancement, he has already sought relief by way of 16 § 2255, and he has not had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claim. Nevertheless, 17 section 2241 is unavailable, because Petitioner does not present a claim of actual innocence. 18 A. Actual Innocence 19 In the Ninth Circuit, a claim of actual innocence for purposes of the Section 2255 savings 20 clause is tested by the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bousley v. United 21 States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). Stephens, 464 U.S. at 898. In Bousley, the Supreme Court explained 22 that, “[t]o establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is 23 more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). Actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal 25 insufficiency. Id. In this case, Petitioner makes no claim of being factually innocent of drug 26 trafficking. Rather, he complains he is actually innocent of the sentence he received. Under the 27 savings clause, Petitioner must demonstrate that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he has 28 been convicted, not the sentence imposed. See Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060; Lorentsen, 223 F.3d at 954 (to 1 establish jurisdiction under Section 2241, petitioner must allege that he is “‘actually innocent’ of the 2 crime of conviction”). Therefore, the instant § 2241 petition does not fit within the exception to the 3 general bar against using Section 2241 to collaterally attack a conviction or sentence imposed by a 4 federal court. See Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898-99 (concluding that, although petitioner satisfied the 5 requirement of not having had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his instructional error 6 claim under Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 (1999), petitioner could not satisfy the 7 actual innocence requirement as articulated in Bousley and, thus, failed to properly invoke the escape 8 hatch exception of Section 2255). 9 Petitioner claims that pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Allen v. Ives, 950 F.3d 1184, 10 1189 (9th Cir. 2020), he may bring his challenges to his sentence via the savings clause. In Allen, the 11 Ninth Circuit addressed an issue it had previously left open and concluded that if a federal prisoner 12 shows that (under a retroactively applicable change in the law) a predicate conviction for career 13 offender status under the mandatory sentencing guidelines no longer qualified as such, then the factual 14 predicate for his mandatory sentencing enhancement did not exist, he is actually innocent of the 15 enhancement, and may file qualify for escape hatch jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Like the 16 petitioner in Allen, Petitioner claims that Mathis v. United States, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), 17 and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), retroactively establish his innocence as to his 18 sentence. 19 In Allen, the Ninth Circuit noted that the petitioner in that case was sentenced under then- 20 mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. In contrast, in this case the petitioner was sentenced under 21 advisory Sentencing Guidelines. In Jaramillo v. United States, 2020 WL 3001783 (D.Az. 2020), the 22 Arizona District Court noted this distinction and Allen’s limited application. The Arizona Court noted 23 that both the Sixth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit found that a petitioner could not satisfy the 24 demanding actual innocence standard by challenging Guidelines which are advisory. Jaramillo, 2020 25 WL 3001783, *11-12. In Gibbs v. United States, 655 F.3d 473, 479 (6th Cir. 2011), the appellate court 26 stated: 27 In federal sentencing cases, federal law authorizes an imprisonment range. While the sentencing guidelines are used as a starting point for determining where within the 28 statutorily-set range a prisoner’s sentence should fall, the guidelines themselves are advisory. A challenge to the sentencing court’s guidelines calculation, therefore, only 1 challenges the legal process used to sentence a defendant and does not raise an argument that the defendant is ineligible for the sentence she received. The Supreme 2 Court did not intend the “actual innocence” exception to save such procedural claims.

3 Similarly, in Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1149 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh 4 Circuit found no basis for a finding of actual innocence of an advisory Guideline. The Eleventh 5 Circuit noted: 6 Spencer does not allege that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was indicted, nor that any of his prior convictions have been vacated. Instead, he contends 7 only that the district court erroneously classified him as a career offender under the advisory guidelines. But any miscalculation of the guideline range cannot be a 8 complete miscarriage of justice because the guidelines are advisory. If the district court were to resentence Spencer, the district court could impose the same sentence again. 9 10 The same holds true here. Petitioner was sentenced in 2013 well after the Supreme Court 11 rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in United States v. Booker, 543 US. 220, 245 (2005). 12 Any error in calculating the advisory Guideline range could not alter the sentence for which he is 13 statutorily eligible; therefore, Petitioner’s claims do not meet the demanding actual innocence 14 exception. See Gibbs, 655 F.3d 478-79 (quoting Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 336 (1992) (“‘[T]o 15 show ‘actual innocence’’ in the sentencing context, the petitioner ‘must show by clear and convincing 16 evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner 17 eligible for the ... penalty under the applicable ... law.’”)) Therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction 18 and the petition should be dismissed. 19 ORDER 20 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case. 21 RECOMMENDATION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 23 Corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 25 assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the 26 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 27 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party 28 may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 1 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and 2 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The 3 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 4 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: September 16, 2020 /s/ . 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28