(HC) Menke v. Ponce, No. 2:2015cv01524 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/2/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that all outstanding motions be terminated. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Menke v. Ponce Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EDWARD MENKE, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1524-JAM-EFB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FELICIA PONCE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel proceeding on a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 19 Institution in Herlong, California. In 1996, he was sentenced by the United States District Court, 20 District of Oregon, to 25 years in prison for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a 21 firearm and as being an Armed Career Criminal within the meaning of the Armed Career 22 Criminal Act. See ECF No. 1 at 11.1 Thereafter, petitioner filed two motions to vacate, set aside 23 or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 11-12. Both motions were denied. 24 Id. Thereafter, petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As discussed below, it must 25 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 26 ///// 27 1 28 For ease of reference, all references to page numbers in the petition are to those assigned via the court’s electronic filing system. Dockets.Justia.com 1 This action challenges the validity of petitioner’s conviction and sentence under the 2 Armed Career Criminal Act. Generally, a challenge to the legality of a petitioner’s sentence 3 should be brought under § 2255 in the court in which the petitioner was sentenced, rather than 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the court for the district in which the petitioner is confined. See 5 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[T]o determine 6 whether jurisdiction is proper, a [federal] court must first determine whether a habeas petition is 7 filed pursuant to § 2241 or § 2255 before proceeding to any other issue.”). This general rule has 8 one exception. Under the savings clause of § 2255 (also known as the “escape hatch”), a federal 9 prisoner may challenge the legality of his sentence under § 2241 in the custodial court, so long as 10 his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id.; 28 11 U.S.C. § 2255(e). “[A] motion meets the escape hatch criteria of § 2255 when the petitioner (1) 12 makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at 13 presenting that claim.”2 Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal 14 quotation marks omitted). 15 “To establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the 16 evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Bousley 17 v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “‘[A]ctual 18 innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has 19 clarified that “a purely legal claim has nothing to do with factual innocence [and thus,] is not a 20 cognizable claim of ‘actual innocence’ for the purposes of qualifying to bring a § 2241 petition 21 under the escape hatch.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 Here, petitioner argues that under recent changes in the law, his convictions of third 23 degree reckless assault and first degree burglary no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the 24 Armed Career Criminal Act. ECF No. 1 at 10-19. He does not make a factual showing that he 25 2 26 27 28 “In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim, we ask . . . (1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion; and (2) whether the law changed in any way relevant to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 2 1 did not commit the offenses for which he was convicted. He simply presents the purely legal 2 claim that he was incorrectly treated as a career offender because two of his prior convictions 3 should not have been relied upon to make the career offender determination. This “is a purely 4 legal claim that has nothing to do with factual innocence,” and “it is not a cognizable claim of 5 ‘actual innocence’ for the purposes of qualifying to bring a § 2241 petition under the escape 6 hatch.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Turner v. Milusnic, No. 7 CV 14-00746-MAN, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127095, at *24-25 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014) (claim 8 that prior convictions could not serve as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act 9 is not cognizable under § 2241 pursuant to the § 2255 escape hatch, citing Marrero). For this 10 reason, petitioner has not satisfied the escape hatch of § 2255, and may not proceed under § 2241. 11 The petition must be construed as another or successive § 2255 petition, see Porter v. Adams, 244 12 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001), and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Harrison, 519 13 F.3d at 957 (jurisdiction over a motion under § 2255 lies only in the sentencing court). 14 15 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that all outstanding motions be terminated. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 21 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 23 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 24 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 25 in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a 2 certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 3 DATED: December 2, 2015. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
