United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge
the Court is a Juan Antonio Zavala's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1), as well
as his request for a default judgment (Dkt. 4). The Clerk of
the Court conditionally filed the § 2241 petition
pending the Court's initial review. (Dkt. 2). The Court
is required to screen habeas corpus petitions to determine
whether they are subject to summary dismissal. See Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
2004, a jury convicted Zavala of two crimes: (1) conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine; and (2) distribution of 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine. The Court sentenced Zavala to 360
months' imprisonment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
See United States v. Zavala, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
2009, Zavala filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Zavala claimed his counsel was
ineffective by failing to advise him of the possible benefits
of pleading guilty without a plea agreement and failing to
investigate mitigating evidence. After appointing counsel for
Zavala and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court
denied the motion. See Zavala v. United States, No.
1:09-cv-212-BLW (D. Idaho July 31, 2012).
October 2018, over six years after the Court denied his
§ 2255 motion, Zavala filed the pending “Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”
See Dkt. 1. Despite its label, this petition is
actually a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, which will be dismissed for lack of
Legal Standards Governing § 2241 and § 2255
general, a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides
the exclusive mechanism by which a federal prisoner may
attack the underlying legality of his detention. Harrison
v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th
Cir. 2000)). A § 2255 motion must be filed in the
district court in which the sentencing was held. Id.
at 956 (citation omitted). Once a prisoner has unsuccessfully
challenged the legality of his detention in a § 2255
proceeding, he cannot file a second or successive § 2255
motion unless he first obtains the authorization of the court
of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The court
of appeals may grant such authorization only if it determines
that the motion makes a prima facie showing that it involves
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense;
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to
cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (incorporating 28 U.S.C. §
a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U .S.C.
§ 2241 is limited to challenging the manner, location,
or condition under which a sentence is executed and is to be
filed in the custodial court. Harrison, 519 F.3d at
956. However, a so-called “escape hatch” or
“savings clause” contained within § 2255
provides that a prisoner may proceed under § 2241 to
challenge the legality of his detention if the remedy under
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” for
doing so. See § 2255(e); Stephens v.
Herrera, 464 ...