Becerra v. United States

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota September 27, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Erik Becerra,                       Case No. 24-CV-3599 (DSD/DJF)       

              Petitioner,                                               

v.                               REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

United States of America,                                               

              Respondent.                                               


   This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Erik Becerra’s petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus1 (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1)2 and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 
Fees or Costs (ECF No. 5) (“IFP Application”).  Mr. Becerra challenges the legality of his prior 
convictions on various constitutional grounds.  (See ECF No. 1; ECF. No. 4.)  Because the Court 
lacks jurisdiction over the Petition, it recommends dismissing the Petition and denying the IFP 
Application as moot.                                                      
   Petitioner Erik Becerra was previously convicted in this District on two counts of being a 
felon in possession of a firearm.  See United States v. Becerra, No. 15-CR-0187 (SRN/DTS) (D. 
Minn.).  As Mr. Becerra’s term of imprisonment for those crimes approached its end, the federal 
government filed a petition to continue detaining Mr. Becerra pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 4246

(a) 

   1 Pursuant to Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court reviews the 
Petition under those rules even though Mr. Becerra filed it under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

. 
   2 In addition to his initial Petition (ECF No. 1), Mr. Becerra also filed an amended petition 
(ECF No. 4) and a document entitled, “Submission of Miranda Right’s Case Miranda v. Arizona” 
(ECF No. 6).  Both appear to be addendums to his Petition rather than standalone pleadings 
intended to replace it.  The Court has considered the Petition and the addendums in conducting the 
required review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.   
following the conclusion of his term of imprisonment.  See United States v. Becerra, No. 21-CV-
0059 (PAM/JFD) (D. Minn.).  The government’s petition was granted, and Mr. Becerra was civilly 
committed pursuant to Section 4246.  He remains subject to that civil commitment today. 
   The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because Mr. Becerra is not “in 

custody” within the meaning of Section 2241.  To be afforded habeas corpus relief, a petitioner 
must be “‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”  
Maleng v. Cook,

490 U.S. 488, 490

 (1989) (per curiam).  As a civil detainee, Mr. Becerra is not 
currently in custody under a criminal conviction or sentence.  Therefore, the Court cannot grant 
him habeas corpus relief based on criminal convictions that no longer control his present detention. 
   Furthermore, Section 2241 is not the proper procedural vehicle for Mr. Becerra to challenge 
his past criminal convictions.  “It is well settled a collateral challenge to a federal conviction or 
sentence must generally be raised in a motion to vacate filed in the sentencing court under [28 
U.S.C.] § 2255 … and not in a habeas petition filed in the court of incarceration … under § 2241.”  
Hill v. Morrison,

349 F.3d 1089, 1091

 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing DeSimone v. Lacy,

805 F.2d 321, 323

 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).  An exception to this rule arises when a petitioner demonstrates 

that the remedy provided by Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 
detention.  See

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(e); DeSimone,

805 F.2d at 323

.  Mr. Becerra argues the Petition 
falls within that exception because his previous Section 2255 petitions have been denied as 
untimely.  (See ECF No. 1, at 2.)  He is mistaken.  Recourse to Section 2241 is reserved for cases 
in which “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the 
sentencing court, as well as for challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence.”  
Jones v. Hendrix,

599 U.S. 465, 478

 (2023) (emphasis added).  A petitioner’s failure to meet the 
filing deadline for Section 2255 relief is not an unusual circumstance, and based on its review, the 
Court finds the Petition plainly is a collateral attack on Mr. Becerra’s sentence.  See United 
States v. Lurie,

207 F.3d 1075, 1077

 (8th Cir. 2000); Maynie v. Williams, No. 3:21-cv-733,

2023 WL 4270257

, at *6 (S.D. Ill. June 29, 2023) (failure to timely file for Section 2255 relief does not
grant a petitioner access to Section 2241 relief). Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this

action, it recommends the Petition be dismissed without prejudice.
Finally, because the Court recommends the Petition be dismissed, it further recommends
Mr. Becerra’s IFP Application be denied as moot.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Petitioner Erik Becerra’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot.

Dated: September 27, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE

Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).