Daniel M. Davis v. Filipe Martinez, Jr., 2:19-cv-03575

Background

Davis was convicted in the District of Idaho in 2009 for possession of material involving sexual exploitation of minors and sentenced to 168 months plus lifetime supervised release.
Davis filed a §2255 motion in the District of Idaho in 2012; that motion was denied in 2016 and the Ninth Circuit denied permission to appeal in 2017.
While the §2255 matter was pending, Davis filed a §2241 petition in the Central District of California in 2016; the court dismissed it as a disguised second/successive §2255 motion.
In March 2019 Davis again filed a pro se §2241 petition in the Central District of California challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence and asserting actual innocence, involuntary plea, lack of jurisdiction, and procedural defects in the §2255 adjudication.
The Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause; Davis responded. The court analyzed whether the §2255 “escape hatch” (28 U.S.C. §2255(e)) permitted a §2241 filing in the custodial court.
The court concluded Davis failed the escape-hatch requirements (no unobstructed procedural shot and no new legal basis), held the petition is a second/successive §2255 in disguise, and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to seeking Ninth Circuit authorization to file a successive §2255.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §2241 petition in the custodial court can challenge the legality of Davis’s sentence	Davis contends §2241 is available because he is actually innocent and §2255 was procedurally defective	Respondent contends challenges to sentence legality must be pursued under §2255 in the sentencing court; §2241 is improper	Held: §2241 is improper for challenging sentence legality; must use §2255 unless escape hatch applies
Whether §2255’s escape hatch (inadequate/ineffective remedy) applies	Davis argues §2255 was inadequate/ineffective to test his claims and he is actually innocent	Respondent argues Davis had a full opportunity to raise claims in his original §2255 and the law has not changed; procedural bars do not make §2255 inadequate	Held: Escape hatch not met—Davis lacked neither new legal basis nor inability to present claims previously
Whether Davis’s claims qualify as actual innocence sufficient to invoke escape hatch	Davis asserts actual innocence of the facts used to justify upward departure and his plea was involuntary	Respondent disputes sufficiency of actual innocence showing to meet the high Bousley standard	Held: Actual innocence not established under the required standard; escape hatch fails
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice and available relief	Davis seeks relief via §2241 in custodial court	Respondent asks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and to require §2255 procedures	Held: Dismissed without prejudice; Davis may seek Ninth Circuit permission to file a successive §2255 in Idaho

Key Cases Cited

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir.) (courts may take judicial notice of public records and filings)
United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir.) (judicial notice of proceedings in other courts)
Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (custodial court §2241 available only for execution-related claims)
Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950 (9th Cir.) (§2255 is the exclusive means to challenge sentence legality)
Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.) (§2255 motions must be heard in the sentencing court)
Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.) (§2255 escape hatch standards explained)
Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (escape hatch requires actual innocence plus lack of unobstructed procedural shot)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for actual innocence in collateral attacks)
Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.) (factors for assessing whether petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot)
Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (procedural bars to successive §2255 do not by themselves render §2255 inadequate)