Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cantillanos-Medina v. United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 29, 2013

MARVIN CANTILLANOS-MEDINA, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER ON 28 U.S.C. § 2241 HABEAS PETITION PARTIALLY CONSTRUED AS SUCCESSIVE 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2241 HABEAS PETITION 1:13-cv-00810-LJO. (Docs. 18, 20)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Marvin Cantillanos-Medina ("Mr. Cantillanos-Medina") is a prisoner in federal custody proceeding pro se. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition and a motion to supplement his petition which are now before the Court. For the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS Mr. Cantillanos-Medina's motion to supplement his § 2241 petition; TRANSFERS one claim in his § 2241 petition to the Central District of California; and CONSTRUES the remaining claims as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence and DISMISSES the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Cantillanos-Medina pled guilty to being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). (Doc. 13). This Court sentenced him to 63-months imprisonment. (Doc. 13). After sentencing, Mr. Cantillanos-Medina filed a timely § 2255 motion in which he alleged an Apprendi [1] violation and two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Doc. 14). This Court denied Mr. Cantillanos-Medina's motion as well as a certificate of appealability ("COA"). (Doc. 16).

Approximately four months later, while incarcerated in the Central District of California, [2] Mr. Cantillanos-Medina filed the instant § 2241 petition with this Court. (Doc. 18). In the undated petition, Mr. Cantillanos-Medina contends that the Court erred when it imposed supervised release because he is a deportable alien. ( Id. ). He also argues that the Court erred when it allowed the government to use prior convictions to enhance his sentence and raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. ( Id. ).

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cantillanos-Medina filed an undated, unsigned motion to supplement his § 2241 petition. (Doc. 20). In the motion to supplement, he reiterates the arguments raised in his petition and asserts two additional claims. ( Id. ). He contends that he qualifies for early release, pursuant to A.R.S. XX-XXXX-XX. ( Id. ). He also argues that the Court erred when it allowed the government to charge him with illegal reentry because he was never previously convicted of illegal entry as required by Ninth Circuit precedent. ( Id. ).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Supplement

"[W]here a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition is complete, the new petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition rather than as a successive application." Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Grullon v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (applying this line of reasoning to a § 2241 petition). Mr. Cantillanos-Medina filed his motion to supplement while his § 2241 petition was still pending. Thus, this Court GRANTS his motion to supplement and will address the claims set forth within.

B. Valid § 2241 Claim

"Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).

Mr. Cantillanos-Medina's claim that he qualifies for early release, pursuant to A.R.S. XX-XXXX-XX, is a valid § 2241 claim because it challenges the manner and condition of his sentence. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1180 n.12 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that a § 2241 petition is the proper vehicle for a prisoner asserting his right to be considered eligible for early release). This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this claim because § 2241 petitions must be heard in the federal district in which the prisoner is confined. See Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864-65. Mr. Cantillanos-Medina is not incarcerated in this district. He is incarcerated in the Central District of California. Accordingly, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.