Michael Tyrone Lyle v. Hollenchick, No. 2:2009cv09179 - Document 3 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge S. James Otero. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pending action be construed as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and, as such, Judgment should be entered dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See order for details. (hr)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 MICHAEL TYRONE LYLE, 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 FNU HOLLENCHICK, 15 Respondent. ) Case No. CV 09-9179-SJO(RC) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 On December 14, 2009, petitioner Michael Tyrone Lyle, a federal 18 inmate confined in this judicial district, filed a purported petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 20 conviction in the United States District Court for the District of 21 Maryland case no. CR JFM-02-0395 on the ground the district court 22 improperly accepted his guilty plea to an unindicted offense. 23 24 25 BACKGROUND On October 20, 2003, the [district] court sentenced [petitioner] 26 to 210 months incarceration after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 27 distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics in 28 violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 [count 1] and possession of a firearm in 1 furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 19 U.S.C. 2 § 924(c) [count 3]. 3 judgment sentencing [petitioner] to a total term of 123 months 4 incarceration. 5 2007 WL 3071429, *1 (D. Md.) (unreported opinion) (citation omitted). 6 In 2007, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his 7 sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District Court for the District 8 of Maryland, and the district court found the motion was untimely and 9 dismissed it on October 17, 2007.2 On April 13, 2005, the court entered an amended [Petitioner] did not appeal. 1 Lyle v. United States, Id. 10 11 On September 4, 2008, petitioner filed a second motion to vacate, 12 set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the 13 District Court for the District of Maryland, which the district court 14 found to be a successive petition and dismissed for lack of subject 15 matter jurisdiction on September 19, 2008. 16 2008 WL 4372385, *1 (D. Md.). Lyle v. United States, 17 18 On March 23, 2009, petitioner filed his third motion to vacate 19 sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District Court for the District 20 of Maryland, and the district court also found this motion to be a 21 successive motion and dismissed it for lack of subject matter 22 23 24 1 The Court takes judicial notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, of the docket sheet in District of Maryland case no. CR-JFM-02-0395. 25 2 26 27 The district court, in dismissing the Section 2255 motion as untimely, specifically noted that petitioner pled guilty to the offense. He has not alleged the discovery of any new facts concerning his case. Lyle, 2007 WL 3071429 at *1. 28 2 1 jurisdiction. Lyle v. United States, 2009 WL 901523, *1 (D. Md.). 2 3 Finally, on June 3, 2009, petitioner filed a petition for writ of 4 mandamus in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an order 5 directing the district court to correct its jurisdictional error. 3 6 In re Lyle, 332 Fed. Appx. 110, *1 (4th Cir. 2009). 7 Fourth Circuit denied the petition on August 26, 2009, finding 8 [m]andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. However, the Id. 9 10 11 DISCUSSION The Court, having reviewed the pending habeas petition 12 purportedly under Section 2241, has determined it is another motion to 13 vacate, set aside or correct petitioner s sentence under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2255, rather than a habeas corpus petition under Section 2241. 15 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) 16 ( [A] court must first determine whether a habeas petition is filed 17 pursuant to § 2241 or § 2255 before proceeding to any other issue. ). 18 In making this determination, the Court has considered whether the 19 pending action comes within Section 2255 s savings clause, and, for 20 the reasons discussed below, has determined it does not. See 21 22 The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the 23 exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of 24 his detention, and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255 25 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 26 Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 27 3 28 In the petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner raised a claim similar to the claim he raises herein. 3 1 omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1896 (2007); Harrison v. Ollison, 2 519 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 general rule, however, known as the escape hatch or savings 4 clause, which provides that [a] federal prisoner may file a habeas 5 petition under § 2241 to challenge the legality of a sentence when the 6 prisoner s remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test 7 the legality of his detention. 4 8 Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897. 9 demonstrating Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. There is an exception to this Harrison, 519 F.3d at 956; The petitioner has the burden of Redfield 10 v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). However, the ban 11 on unauthorized second or successive petitions does not per se make a 12 § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. 13 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Lorentsen v. Hood, 14 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 why he did not, or could not, attempt to obtain authorization from the 16 Fourth Circuit to file a second or successive motion under Section 17 2255 raising his claim. 18 remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and he cannot 19 invoke the savings clause to proceed under Section 2241. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 Here, petitioner does not explain Thus, petitioner has failed to show his 20 21 Since the pending action is a motion to vacate sentence under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2255, and not a habeas corpus petition under Section 2241, 23 this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider petitioner s motion. 24 25 26 27 28 4 [A] motion meets the escape hatch criteria of § 2255 when a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 959 (citation omitted); Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. Here, petitioner, who pleaded guilty, does not, and cannot, claim actual innocence. 4 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) ( A prisoner in custody under sentence of a 2 court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released 3 upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the 4 Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was 5 without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was 6 in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to 7 collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to 8 vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. (emphasis added)). 9 the District of Maryland is the only proper forum for petitioner s Here, 10 Section 2255 motion. However, in light of petitioner s three previous 11 Section 2255 motions, this Court declines to exercise its discretion 12 to transfer this action to the District of Maryland, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, 13 and instead dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of 14 jurisdiction. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 899. 15 16 ORDER 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pending action be construed as a 18 motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2255 and, as such, Judgment should be entered dismissing the action 20 without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 21 12/21/09 22 DATE: S. JAMES OTERO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 PRESENTED BY: 25 DATE: 26 27 ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R&R-MDO\09-9179.mdo 28 12/17/09 5

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.