United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge
Doroteo Estrada-Jasso has filed a pleading entitled
“Petition for Application for Adjustment of Status and
Waiver of Admissibility, ” which the Court will
construe as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Civ. Dkt. 1 at 2. Petitioner also invokes 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Id. at 1. Having reviewed the
record in this case, Petitioner’s initial § 2255
proceedings, and the underlying criminal case, the Court will
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess/distribute 500
grams or more of methamphetamine. Crim. Dkt. 92. This Court
imposed a 360-month sentence. Petitioner’s appeal was
dismissed. Crim. Dkts. 117, 118, 140. Petitioner filed an
initial § 2255 motion, which the Court dismissed with
prejudice. Crim. Dkt. 144; Dkt. 10 in Civil No.
4:09-cv-00354-BLW (D. Idaho). Under the guise of a Rule 60(b)
motion, Petitioner later filed a successive § 2255
motion, which the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Crim. Dkt. 173; Dkt. 19 in Civ. No. 4:09-cv-00354-BLW (D.
Governing Legal Standards
Federal prisoners claiming the right to be released on the
grounds that their sentence violates the Constitution or laws
of the United States may file a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. “As a general rule, § 2255 provides the
exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner
may test the legality of detention.” Harrison v.
Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008).
are also generally limited to one motion under § 2255
and may not bring a “second or successive motion”
unless it meets the exacting standards of 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h): such a motion cannot be considered unless it has
first been certified by the court of appeals to contain
either “(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, ” or “(2) a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.” However, a federal prisoner may file a
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the remedy
provided in § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). This “escape hatch” is satisfied
if the petitioner “(1) makes a claim of actual
innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural
shot at presenting that claim.” Stephens v.
Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The Petition Is Subject to Dismissal as an Unauthorized
Successive Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
petition here reveals that Petitioner is challenging his
sentence-that is, he is attacking the legality of his
detention. Civ. Dkt. 1 at 6-7 (arguing that this Court
“should have weighed” certain factors to
“fit the ponishment [sic] to the crime” and
asking that Petitioner’s sentence “be vacated,
set aside, or reduced”). Petitioner has not made a
showing of actual innocence so as to be entitled to the
escape hatch of § 2255(e). Therefore, the Petition must
be construed as a successive § 2255 motion. Because
Petitioner has not obtained certification from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive motion, this
case will be dismissed.
Petitioner’s “Petition for Application for
Adjustment of Status and Waiver of Admissibility, ”
which the Court has construed as a § 2255 ...