(HC) Trevino v. Trate

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 OSCAR TREVINO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00038-SAB-HC

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

13 B.M. TRATE, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 14 Respondent. JUDGE

15 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, 21 California, serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern 22 District of Washington. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) On January 8, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant 23 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therein, Petitioner alleges that the government and defense 24 agreed that time spent in custody on a related state charge would be credited against the federal 25 sentence and that a plea agreement was entered contingent on concurrent sentencing. However, 26 the state sentence had already been served by the time the federal sentence was imposed and 27 therefore could not run concurrently with the state sentence. (Id. at 6.) 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a 4 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 5 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 6 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal 9 conviction or sentence must do so by moving the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set 10 aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 11 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). “The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive 12 means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on 13 the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2241.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 15 Nevertheless, a “savings clause” or “escape hatch” exists in § 2255(e) by which a federal 16 prisoner may seek relief under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 17 to be “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1047 18 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 19 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 20 curiam). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 21 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The remedy under § 2255 usually will not be deemed 22 inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was denied, or because a remedy 23 under § 2255 is procedurally barred. Id. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy 24 is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 25 “An inquiry into whether a § 2241 petition is proper under these circumstances is critical 26 to the determination of district court jurisdiction” because § 2241 petitions must be heard in the 27 2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 1 custodial court while § 2255 motions must be heard in the sentencing court. Hernandez, 204 F.3d 2 at 865. If the instant petition is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it may be heard in this 3 Court. Conversely, if the instant petition is in fact a disguised § 2255 motion, it must be heard in 4 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington as the sentencing court. 5 A petitioner may proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the escape hatch when the petitioner 6 “(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at 7 presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (citing Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060). In the Ninth 8 Circuit, a claim of actual innocence for purposes of the § 2255 escape hatch is tested by the 9 standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). 10 Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. In Bousley, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]o establish actual 11 innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not 12 that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks 13 and citation omitted). Furthermore, “actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal 14 insufficiency.” Id. “In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to 15 pursue his claim, we ask whether petitioner’s claim ‘did not become available’ until after a 16 federal court decision. In other words, we consider: (1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s 17 claim ‘did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion;’ and 18 (2) whether the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 19 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (citations omitted)). 20 Here, Petitioner challenges the sentence imposed and requests a “[r]emand . . . for a 21 corrected sentence in line with the agreement of the parties and the intent of the sentencing 22 judge.” (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Petitioner does not make a claim of actual innocence, which requires 23 Petitioner to “demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no 24 reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks 25 and citation omitted). Moreover, Petitioner has not established that he has not had an 26 unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim previously because “a change in the law 27 create[ed] a previously unavailable legal basis for petitioner’s claim.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 961 1 Il. 2 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 4 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 5 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 6 | Judge. 7 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 8 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 9 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 10 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 11 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 12 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 13 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 14 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 15 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 16 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 19 | Dated: _ March 25, 2024 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28