United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not
Be Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
January 22, 2013, following a jury trial in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho, Petitioner Jesus
Guadalupe Sanchez (“Petitioner”) was convicted
of: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine; and (2) possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. See USA v. Sanchez,
1:12-CR-00155-001-BLW (D. Idaho), ECF Docket No.
(“Dkt.”) 459. On April 9, 2013, Petitioner was
sentenced to 400 months in prison and five years of
supervised release. Id. at Dkt. 583.
March 10, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his
conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(“Section 2255”) in the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho. USA v. Sanchez,
1:12-CR-00155-001-BLW, Dkt. 676. The motion was denied.
Id. at Dkt. 702.
March 29, 2018, Petitioner, an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Victorville, California (“FCI
Victorville”), filed the instant pro se Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”) in this
Court, challenging his conviction and sentence. Dkt. 1, Pet.
at 2. Petitioner asserts he is “serving a sentence in
violation of the Sixth Amendment” because the
sentencing judge made erroneous findings in violation of
Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right and the
“sentence should therefore be vacated.” See
id. at 3.
petitioner challenging “the manner, location, or
conditions of a sentence's execution” must file a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241 in the
custodial court. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952,
956 (9th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, Section 2255
“provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a
federal prisoner may test the legality of detention.”
Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.
2000). A petitioner challenging “the legality of his
sentence” must file a motion to vacate his sentence
under Section 2255 and “[Section] 2255 motions must be
heard in the sentencing court.” Hernandez v.
Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000).
is, however, an exception to this general rule that a Section
2255 challenge to the legality of detention must be filed in
the sentencing court. Under the “escape hatch” of
Section 2255, a federal prisoner may challenge the legality
of detention in the custodial court if, and only if, the
remedy under Section 2255 in the sentencing court is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Stephens v.
Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). A prisoner
may file under Section 2255's escape hatch in the
custodial court “when the prisoner ‘(1) makes a
claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an
unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that
claim.'” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190,
1192 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Stephens, 464 F.3d at
respect to the first prong of Section 2255's escape
hatch, an actual innocence claim requires a petitioner to
“demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is
more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have
convicted him.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898
(citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 118
S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998)). With respect to the
second prong of Section 2255's escape hatch, whether the
petitioner has not had an “unobstructed procedural
shot” at presenting his actual innocence claim, the
Court must consider: “(1) whether the legal basis for
petitioner's claim did not arise until after he had
exhausted his direct appeal and first [Section] 2255 motion;
and (2) whether the law changed in any way relevant to
petitioner's claim after that first [Section] 2255
motion.” Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d
1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
Petitioner does not challenge “the manner, location, or
conditions of a sentence's execution.” See
Harrison, 519 F.3d at 956. Rather, Petitioner challenges
the legality of his conviction and sentence. See
Dkt. 1, Pet. Thus, Petitioner cannot proceed in this Court,
the custodial court, unless Section 2255's “escape
hatch” provision applies. Lorentsen, 223 F.3d
the two prongs of Section 2255's escape hatch, the Court
finds the Petition does not qualify for the exception.
Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959. First, Petitioner fails
to make a claim of actual innocence. Moreover, Petitioner has
not offered any evidence that would lead the Court to
conclude “in light of all the evidence, it is more