Alaimalo v. United States
2011 WL 2463509
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Alaimalo, a federal prisoner, was convicted in 1997 of importing methamphetamine to Guam and related possession counts, receiving three life sentences for importations and multiple life/long terms for possession; all sentences run concurrently.
- Alaimalo asserted actual innocence of the importation charges based on Cabaccang holding that transporting drugs within U.S. territory is not importation under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a).
- He raised this claim on direct appeal and again via multiple § 2241 petitions, including a 2006 direct-appeal matter and a 2006/2008–09 habeas sequence, culminating in a February 2008 petition adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit panel.
- The panel held it had jurisdiction to review the § 2241 petition despite no COA, invoking the § 2255(e) savings clause and the lack of an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting the claim earlier.
- The majority remanded with instructions to issue the writ and vacate the importation convictions; the dissent disagreed, emphasizing finality and lack of practical relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can we review Alaimalo’s §2241 petition without a COA? | Alaimalo should be reviewable under the escape hatch §2255(e). | Jurisdiction requires a COA or proper §2241 framework. | Yes; court has jurisdiction without COA under the escape hatch. |
| Whether Alaimalo's actual innocence is the proper basis for relief given Cabaccang. | Cabaccang established a material change in law enabling innocence claim. | Past law foreclosed the innocence claim prior to Cabaccang. | Alaimalo is actually innocent, warranting habeas relief under §2255(e). |
| Do abuse of the writ or law-of-the-case preclude relief on successive petitions? | Abuse of the writ and law-of-the-case do not bar relief. | Such doctrines preclude duplicative collateral attacks. | Neither doctrine bars consideration of Alaimalo’s successive §2241 petition. |
| Does law of the case apply to successive §2241 petitions to bar relief? | Law of the case should apply to govern subsequent petitions. | Law of the case may not preclude where new issues arise or law changed. | Even if applied, Alaimalo II was wrong; he may obtain relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc; overruled earlier importation rulings regarding transport through international waters)
- Guam v. Sugiyama, 846 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1988) (exported as importation through international waterways; later overruled by Cabaccang)
- United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1985) (transportation through international airspace deemed importation by earlier panels; overruled)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence standard for habeas relief)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (federal collateral review principles; futility not a basis to bypass relief)
- Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (comity and finality yield to correcting fundamentally unjust incarceration)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (mootness and potential collateral consequences; guidance on “ends of justice”)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (origins of §2255 remedies as parallel to habeas)