United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
A. KRONSTADT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court dismisses this habeas action for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner is an inmate at the federal prison facility at
Lompoc, California. He filed a habeas petition in this Court
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 regarding his 2006 federal drug
trafficking conviction and sentence in federal court in the
District of Kansas.
Although not entirely clear from the petition (or the
supplemental statements that Judge Wilner ordered Petitioner
to provide (Docket # 1, 6, 8)), Petitioner appears to contend
that: (a) he was originally sentenced based on the improper
use of a juvenile conviction and (b) the Bureau of Prisons
has misclassified his status within the federal prison system
based on that conviction. (Docket # 9.) Petitioner purports
to bring this habeas action now based on his alleged recent
“discovery” of the presentence report from his
2006 case. (Docket # 1 at 4.)
is Petitioner’s fourth habeas action in this
district. As recounted in the Court’s previous
orders, Petitioner has also challenged his conviction and
sentence in post-conviction proceedings in the District of
Kansas and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on numerous
note, the Tenth Circuit has “denied three separate
motions for authorization to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion” after his initial motion.
United States v. Parada, 2017 WL 2225228 (D. Kan.
2017) (dismissing additional habeas petition as successive).
government moved to dismiss the action on several grounds.
(Docket # 10.) The government argues that Petitioner’s
action is a disguised Section 2255 motion that Petitioner
improperly filed in this district rather than in the District
of Kansas. The government contends that the action is
successive, and filed without permission from a federal
appellate court. Finally, the government asserts that
Petitioner’s claim regarding his prison-based
classification is not cognizable in federal court.
Petitioner’s opposition brief focused on the alleged
errors in his prison classification score, but provided
little additional insight into his claims or to refute the
government’s arguments. (Docket # 12.)
it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, ” the Court may summarily dismiss a
habeas petition. Local Rule 72-3.2; see also Rules 1
and 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if
petitioner plainly not entitled to relief; rule applicable to
any type of habeas action); Green v. Fox, No. CV
15-5420 DMG (GJS), 2015 WL 4932822 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
(summary dismissal of improper § 2255 petition).
Federal prisoners have two statutory paths by which they may
seek a writ of habeas corpus. “As a general rule,
” federal inmates may collaterally attack their
conviction and sentence only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th
However, a federal prisoner may also seek a writ under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. That statute permits a prisoner to pursue
habeas relief where a favorable result (such as the reversal
of a disciplinary action and the loss of good time credits)
will shorten the prisoner’s sentence. Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2003); Nettles
v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(habeas jurisdiction exists only where success on
prisoner’s claims would “lead to his immediate or
earlier release from confinement”).
with his previous actions in this district,
Petitioner’s habeas claims challenging his original
criminal sentence may only be brought under Section 2255 in
the district of conviction. Petitioner has had ample
opportunity to bring those challenges. He is not entitled to
further attack his Kansas conviction in this California
Petitioner’s contention that he now has access to his
presentence report for the first time since his sentencing
– the stated basis for his current action –
further undermines his claim in this district. Section
2255(h) limits a federal prisoner to one post-appeal
proceeding. However, as Judge Wilner noted in the original
screening order (Docket # 4 at 1), “newly
discovered” facts or evidence may provide a basis for
an appellate court to authorize a successive motion under
Yet, Petitioner’s submissions make clear that he
neither sought nor obtained authorization from the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals to pursue a successive action based
on this new information. As a result, this Court does not