Bryan v. Du ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER BRYAN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00495-ART-CLB 5 Petitioner, v. DISMISSAL ORDER 6 MIRANDA M. DU, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 10 Pro se Petitioner Steven Christopher Bryan, who is currently subject to 11 supervised release following his federal criminal conviction, has filed a Petition 12 for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, paid his filing fee, and filed a 13 motion to file an oversized brief. (ECF Nos. 1 (“Petition”), 1-1, 4.) This matter 14 comes before this Court for initial review of the Petition under the Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.1 For the 16 reasons discussed below, this Court finds that the Petition is a disguised motion 17 attacking a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As such, this Court 18 dismisses this action based on a lack of jurisdiction and denies the motion to file 19 an oversized brief as moot. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On December 13, 2021, following a jury trial, Bryan was convicted of 22 voluntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a) in United States of America v. 23 Steven Bryan, 3:19-cr-00060-MMD-WGC.2 Bryan was sentenced to 70 months in 24 the Federal Bureau of Prisons and 3 years of supervised release thereafter. Bryan 25 appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on August 31, 26 1 This Court exercises its discretion to apply the rules governing § 2254 petitions 27 to this § 2241 action. (Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254.) 2This Court takes judicial notice of the docket records in case number 3:19-cr- 28 00060-MMD-WGC-1. 1 2023, in United States of America v. Steven Bryan, No. 21-10372. According to 2 his Petition, Bryan has been released from prison, is residing in Reno, Nevada, 3 and is under the supervision of the United States Probation Office of the District 4 of Nevada. 5 In his Petition, Bryan requests that this Court reverse his conviction 6 and/or grant him a new trial. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Bryan presents the following 7 grounds for relief: (1) “[n]o valid criminal statute forb[ade his] conduct” because 8 he killed in self-defense, (2) his trial and direct appeal counsel “refused to 9 acknowledge [that] 18 U.S.C. 1153(b) mandates the use of state law for actions 10 not covered by federal law,” (3) “[t]he prosecution sought the lesser included 11 offenses at 6 p.m. the night before the case went to the jury,” which “curtail[ed 12 his] constitutional rights to present a complete defense,” and (4) the court 13 improperly instructed the jury “and lessened the burden on the government.” (Id. 14 at 6–7.) 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is the appropriate vehicle for a petitioner who 17 wishes to challenge the execution of his sentence. See United States v. Giddings, 18 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Review of the execution of a sentence may be 19 had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). 20 Comparatively, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the sentencing court is generally 21 the appropriate vehicle for a defendant challenging the validity of a federal 22 sentence or conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (stating that “[a] prisoner in 23 custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the 24 right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation 25 of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which 26 imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence”). 27 Bryan’s Petition raises grounds for relief concerning the validity of his 28 conviction, not the execution of his sentence. As such, the proper vehicle for 1 Bryan’s claims is through § 2255, which must be brought before his sentencing 2 court. Bryan does not appear to dispute this conclusion; rather, Bryan argues 3 that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate to challenge his conviction because 4 he is actually innocent. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) 5 Although federal petitioners are limited from seeking relief under § 2241 if 6 adequate review under § 2255 is available, see Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 7 1055 (9th Cir. 1999), there is an exception to this limitation: the “escape hatch.” 8 This exception “permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition 9 pursuant to § 2241 to contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy under 10 § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Stephens 11 v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 The remedy under § 2255 will not be deemed inadequate or ineffective merely 13 because a prior § 2255 motion was denied or because a remedy under § 2255 is 14 procedurally barred. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 “[A] § 2241 petition is available under the ‘escape hatch’ of § 2255 when a 16 petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an 17 ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 18 898. Regarding the former prong, in the Ninth Circuit, “a claim of actual 19 innocence for purposes of the escape hatch of § 2255 is tested by the standard 20 articulated” in Bousley, which states that “‘[t]o establish actual innocence, 21 petitioner must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than 22 not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.’” Id. 23 This Court finds that Bryan cannot satisfy the requirements of the escape 24 hatch. Even if Bryan could establish the actual innocence requirement,3 which 25 26 3 Bryan contends that he killed the victim in self-defense and that “legal homicide is not illegal.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Although “‘[a]ctual innocence’ means factual 27 innocence, not mere legal insufficiency,” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has concluded that a 28 1 || this Court is unable to assess based on the limited record before it, Bryan fails 2 || to demonstrate that he has been obstructed from presenting his grounds for relief 3 || through a § 2255 motion. Indeed, it does not appear (1) that Bryan has ever filed 4 || a§ 2255 motion before the sentencing court or (2) that Bryan’s grounds for relief 5 |} are based on newly developed evidence, making them previously unavailable 6 || during his time for seeking relief through a § 2255 motion. Consequently, this 7 || Court cannot consider the Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because it lacks 8 || jurisdiction. Bryan will need to seek relief for his claims, if at all, through a § 2255 9 || motion before his sentencing court. 10 Because reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s conclusions to be 11 || debatable or wrong, this Court denies a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 12 || § 2253\(c). 13 || Ill. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that the Petition [ECF No. 1] is dismissed based on 15 || a lack of jurisdiction. 16 It is further ordered that the motion to file an oversized brief [ECF No. 4] is 17 || denied as moot. 18 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly 20 || and close this action. 21 DATED THIS 20th day of November 2024. 22 23 j idan 24 rus Word dom ANNE R. TRAUM 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 || petitioner’s claim of justification pursuant to self-defense “corresponds with Schlup’s actual innocence requirement.” Jaramillo v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 877, 883 28 || (9th Cir. 2003).