(HC) Hailassie v. United States of America et al, No. 1:2007cv01509 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the petition 1 for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241, signed by Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/24/2007. Motion referred to Judge O'Neill, Objections to F&R due by 11/28/2007.(Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Hailassie v. United States of America et al Doc. 4 Case 1:07-cv-01509-LJO-GSA Document 4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ARNOLD R. HAILASSIE, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 D. SMITH, Warden, et al., 17 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-CV-01509 LJO GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 18 19 20 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary in 22 Atwater, California, pursuant to judgment imposed by the United States District Court for the 23 Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, for Petitioner’s 2005 convictions of conspiracy 24 to exchange a stolen U.S. Treasure check and conspiracy to commit fraud with stolen identification 25 information. See United States v. Hailassie, Case No. 2:03CR00336-01. Petitioner alleges in his 26 petition that he is challenging the manner, location or conditions of the execution of his sentence. 27 Petitioner claims the Bureau of Prisons has collected money from his inmate checking account in an 28 attempt to satisfy a restitution amount of $75,687.67; however, he claims restitution was not ordered U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-01509-LJO-GSA 1 Document 4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 3 by the court. 2 Petitioner is incorrect. The judgment entered on March 4, 2005, in Petitioner’s criminal 3 action clearly indicates that restitution in the amount of $75,687.67 was imposed in addition to a 4 $200 assessment. See United States v. Hailassie, Case No. 2:03CR00336-01. Thus, the Bureau of 5 Prisons is properly collecting the amount imposed by the judgment. Petitioner is therefore 6 challenging the judgment itself, not the manner or conditions of his confinement. 7 A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his conviction 8 or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 9 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Smith, 719 10 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997); Broussard v. Lippman, 11 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. 12 Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. 13 way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 14 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 15 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by 16 A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if he 17 can show that the remedy available under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of 18 his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting § 2255). Although 19 there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy, the 20 Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. Id; Holland v. Pontesso, 234 F.3d 21 1277 (9th Cir. 2000) (Section 2255 not inadequate or ineffective because Petitioner misses statute of 22 limitations); Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (Dismissal of a successive motion 23 attacking sentence did not render such motion procedure an ineffective or inadequate remedy, so as 24 to authorize federal prisoner to seek habeas relief); Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s 25 denial of a prior § 2255 motion is insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 26 1162-63 (9th Cir.1988) (a petitioner's fears bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition 27 inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d 582 28 (9th Cir.1956); see, United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (procedural U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 2 Case 1:07-cv-01509-LJO-GSA Document 4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 requirements of § 2255 may not be circumvented by invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651). 2 The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. 3 United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 4 As stated above, Petitioner challenges the underlying sentence. Because he is alleging errors 5 in his sentence, and not errors in the administration of his sentence, the Court finds that Petitioner is 6 not entitled to relief under § 2241, and his petition should be dismissed. In addition, Petitioner 7 makes no claim that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Should the Petitioner wish to pursue his 8 claims in federal court, he must do so by way of a motion to vacate or set aside pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2255. The petition must be dismissed. 10 RECOMMENDATION 11 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 12 DISMISSED because the petition does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief under 13 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 14 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 15 United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 16 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 17 California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall 20 be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 21 objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 22 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 23 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 60kij8 October 24, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 3
]]>
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.
