Edwin Marrero v. Richard Ives
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Marrero filed a §2241 habeas petition in the Eastern District of California challenging his federal confinement.
- District court construed the petition as a §2255 motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Marrero was convicted in the Northern District of Illinois of two counts under 18 U.S.C. §1951 and §924, and classified as a career offender, receiving 240 months on Counts 1–2 and 84 months on the firearm charge.
- Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in 2002; Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Marrero later filed a §2255 motion in Illinois; dismissal for untimeliness or lack of timely notice followed.
- Marrero then filed a self-represented habeas petition in 2008 in California; district court treated it as a §2255 motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241 escape hatch applies to actual innocence of the conviction | Marrero claims actual innocence warrants §2241 relief. | Government argues escape hatch requires actual innocence of the crime and unobstructed shot at raising it. | Not cognizable; not proven actual innocence or unobstructed opportunity. |
| Whether career-offender sentencing claim can invoke the escape hatch | Two related offenses should not be treated as related, altering career-offender status. | Argument is a legal challenge to guidelines application, not a factual innocence claim. | Purely legal claim, not actual innocence; not cognizable under escape hatch. |
| Whether any exceptions from other circuits permit escape hatch relief | There exist exceptions allowing sentencing claims under the escape hatch. | Exceptions do not apply here; petitioner fails to meet criteria. | We do not adopt exceptions; petitioner fails to qualify under the escape hatch. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (§2255 exclusive avenue; escape hatch only if inadequate)
- Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (de novo review; procedural obstruction considered)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence meaning factual, not legal insufficiency)
- Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (clarification of statute; not authority for broad escape hatch)
- Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (remand to address whether petition qualifies for escape hatch)
- Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (threshold question of jurisdiction before merits)