CHARLES IZAC V. MARION FEATHERS, No. 15-35938 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES IZAC, No. Petitioner-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-35938 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01713-JE v. MEMORANDUM* MARION FEATHERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Charles Izac appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Izac was convicted in the Northern District of West Virginia of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because he had suffered three prior convictions for first degree burglary from the State of Virginia. Izac filed a section 2241 habeas petition in the district of his confinement – the District of Oregon – challenging the legality of his sentence. During the pendency of this appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted Izac authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 motion challenging his sentence. Izac currently has a section 2255 motion pending in Northern District of West Virginia case number 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES. In light of the pendency of this motion, Izac cannot show that section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotations omitted). The district court therefore properly dismissed Izac’s section 2241 petition for failing to meet the requirements of section 2255(h)’s escape hatch. See id. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35938

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.