Joelson v. Sultzbaugh

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 Case No. 19-cv-1595 DMS MAXWELL JOELSON, 12 ORDER DENYING Petitioner, CERTIFICATE OF 13 APPEALABILITY v. 14 DAVID SULTZBAUGH, Chief U.S. 15 Probation Officer for the Southern District of California, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 On August 23, 2019, Petitioner Maxwell Joelson filed a Petition for a Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2021, this Court 21 issued an order dismissing Petitioner’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 22 19.) On May 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23 issued an order remanding the case to this Court for “for the limited purpose of 24 allowing the district court to grant or deny a certificate of appealability.” (ECF 25 No. 23.) 26 A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a 27 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 1 disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists 2 could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 3 proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. 4 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). However, when a “district court denies a 5 habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying 6 constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue (and an appeal of 7 the district court’s order may be taken) if the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of 8 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 9 of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 10 the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 478. 11 Reasonable jurists could not find it debatable whether the Court was correct 12 in dismissing the habeas petition in this case. Petitioner sought habeas relief under 13 the escape hatch provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The escape hatch 14 provision allows a person in federal custody to “file a habeas corpus petition 15 pursuant to § 2241 to contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy under 16 § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his dentition.” Stephens v. 17 Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 18 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000)). To qualify for the escape hatch of § 2255 and file 19 a motion under § 2241, a petitioner must (1) make a claim of actual innocence, and 20 (2) demonstrate that he did not have an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting 21 that claim for relief. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 Petitioner did not qualify for the escape hatch and was therefore not entitled to file 23 a habeas petition under § 2241 because he had numerous opportunities to raise an 24 actual innocence claim on direct appeal or in one of his several motions for collateral 25 relief before the sentencing court and the Court of Appeals. This conclusion is not 26 subject to reasonable debate. 27 / / / ] Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: June 29, 2021 » Yim mn. 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 5 United States Chief District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28