United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.
On May 9, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition") in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana where he was then confined. On February 24, 2014, the Petition was transferred to this district following Petitioner's transfer to the Victorville Federal Correctional Institution and the "Superintendent for USP Victorville" was substituted for the Respondent in this matter. (Docket No. 25; "Order Transferring Action to the Central District of California"). On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed an "Addendum to 2241." (Docket Entry No. 29).
On August 18, 2004, Petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, of eight counts of bank robbery and subsequently sentenced to eight concurrent life sentences. United States v. Martin , 431 F.3d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 2005). On December 2, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentence. Id . On April 3, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. Martin v. United States , 547 U.S. 1059 (2006).
On January 31, 2006, Petitioner filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Texas which the district court recharacterized as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On May 24, 2006, the court denied the § 2255 motion. (Pet. Attachment A; Docket 1-1). See 2007 WL 1138830 *1 (E.D. Tex. April 17, 2007).
Petitioner subsequently filed a § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of Texas challenging his convictions. On April 17, 2007, the district court dismissed the petition finding that Petitioner was required to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in order to challenge his convictions and that Petitioner had failed to meet the criteria to file a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255 because he could not establish that any remedy pursuant to § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Martin v. Outlaw, 2007 WL 1138830 *2 (E.D. Tex. April 17, 2007). The Court also found that since Petitioner had previously filed a § 2255 motion, he would be barred from proceeding with a subsequent § 2255 motion absent authorization from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id.
On January 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a second § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia challenging his convictions and claiming actual innocence. On April 26, 2009, the district court dismissed the petition, rejecting Petitioner's claims that he was entitled to file a § 2241 petition alleging newly discovered evidence of his innocence. See Martin v. Cross, 2009 WL 1034497 *3 (N.D. West Virginia, April 16, 2009).
On May 7, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's application to the District Court for the Western District of Texas for post-conviction DNA testing. United States v. Martin, 377 Fed.Appx. 395 (5th Cir., May 7, 2010). The Court held that, given the overwhelming evidence of Petitioner's guilt, including the testimony of co-defendants regarding Petitioner's participation in the robberies and Petitioner's handwritten letters that amounted to a confession, Petitioner had failed to "explain how DNA testing would raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the bank robbery offenses[.]" Id. at 396.
On May 3, 2011, Petitioner filed a third § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, challenging his convictions and claiming, inter alia, actual innocence. On January 18, 2012, the district court denied the Petition finding that Petitioner had "failed to provide any new reliable evidence establishing his innocence[.]" Martin v. Martinez, 2012 WL 140420 *5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2012).
Despite the fact that multiple courts have rejected Petitioner's attempts to challenge his convictions by filing a § 2241 petition rather than a § 2255 motion in the district of conviction, Petitioner has not filed a § 2255 motion in the Western District of Texas and/or sought authorization from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2255 Motion. Instead, Petitioner has chosen to file the instant Petition - his fourth habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 - which also challenges his underlying convictions based on a claim of actual innocence. Petitioner contends that some of the banks he was convicted of robbing were not located within the "Western District of Texas - Austin Division, " thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction and proving his "actual innocence and factual innocence." (Pet. 3-4).
On August 30, 2013, prior to the transfer of this case, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an Order to "show cause why this action can proceed under § 2241 or why, in the alternative, it should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas." (Docket No. 13). Petitioner did not file any response to the Court's Order. Instead, Petitioner sought a temporary restraining order, and filed a motion for further proceedings and other requests with the court, which were denied. (Docket Nos. 19, 20, 22). The "addendum" that Petitioner filed on March 24, 2014 contains an additional challenge to Petitioner's convictions: Petitioner claims that there is no federal jurisdiction over bank robbery offenses because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does not insure banks for loss of funds due to robbery or bank fraud. (Docket No. 29; Attached Exhibit).
As set forth below, Petitioner is not entitled to challenge his convictions by pursuing a § 2241 petition because he has failed to establish that the remedy available to him through a motion filed pursuant to § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Accordingly, the Court finds that the instant Petition should be characterized as a section 2255 motion over which ...