Becerra v. United States
- David Doty
- 0:24-cv-03599
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Becerra v. United States, Magistrate Judge Foster recommended denying the habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying Becerra’s fee application as moot.
Erik Becerra’s challenge to his prior federal convictions was recommended for denial without prejudice because the court found it lacked jurisdiction. His application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was recommended for denial as moot. The report and recommendation did not decide whether his constitutional challenges to the convictions were valid.
What happened
In Becerra v. United States, Erik Becerra challenged his prior federal convictions on constitutional grounds. He filed the challenge as a petition asking for habeas relief and also asked to proceed without paying court fees. He is currently held under a civil commitment, not a criminal sentence.
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Becerra was not in custody under the criminal convictions or sentence he challenged. It also said that a challenge to a federal conviction generally must be brought under a different procedure in the sentencing court, and that missing the deadline for that procedure did not allow him to use this habeas petition instead.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that Becerra’s petition be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and that his application to proceed without prepaying fees be denied as moot. The report and recommendation was not itself a final order or directly appealable judgment.
The detailed version
- Becerra v. United States · No. 0:24-cv-03599
- David Doty
- Sept. 27, 2024
Background
Erik Becerra filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. He challenged his prior convictions on constitutional grounds. The opinion states that Becerra had been convicted in the District of Minnesota of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
After Becerra’s prison term was nearing its end, the federal government obtained an order continuing his detention under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a). Becerra was then civilly committed and remained subject to that civil commitment when he filed this case.
Jurisdiction and Habeas Procedure
The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition. Habeas relief generally requires the petitioner to be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. The court determined that Becerra’s civil commitment did not place him in custody under the criminal conviction or sentence he attacked, so the court could not grant habeas relief based on those convictions.
The court also concluded that § 2241 was not the proper procedure for Becerra’s challenge. A collateral challenge to a federal conviction or sentence generally must be brought through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, rather than through a § 2241 habeas petition. An exception exists when the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention. Becerra argued that this exception applied because his earlier § 2255 petitions had been denied as untimely.
The court rejected that argument. It stated that failing to meet the filing deadline for § 2255 relief is not an unusual circumstance that permits access to § 2241 relief. The court also found that Becerra’s petition was plainly a collateral attack on his sentence.
Recommended Disposition
The report and recommendation recommends that the habeas petition be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It separately recommends that Becerra’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs be denied as moot because the petition was recommended for denial.
The document states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It explains that the parties may file written objections within the period specified by the local rules.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.