Vincent Keith Orr v. The Attorney General of the State of California, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that the petitioner's attorney failed to follow his instructions to recant a plea and go to trial. The court dismissed the case, determining that the petition challenged the validity of the guilty plea rather than the execution of the sentence, and noted that the petitioner had already filed a § 2255 motion in his criminal case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241“The Court therefore DISMISSES this case opened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a § 2241 petition is the proper vehicle for challenging the execution of a sentence, not the validity of the conviction or plea itself. Because the petitioner's claim was that his attorney failed to follow his instructions to recant a plea, the claim attacks the propriety of the plea/conviction, which is properly addressed via § 2255. Furthermore, the existence of a pending § 2255 motion in the criminal case reinforces that the § 2241 petition is the wrong vehicle and potentially duplicative. The dismissal is procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between § 2241 and § 2255 as established in Ninth Circuit precedent. It accurately characterizes the petitioner's claim (failure to recant plea) as a challenge to the plea's validity rather than sentence execution. The reference to the pending § 2255 motion provides additional context for why the § 2241 petition is improper. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VINCENT KEITH ORR, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03793-JES-JLB 13 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 14 v. 15 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Vincent Keith Orr’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 21 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). The petition alleges that 22 Petitioner wanted to “recant [his] plea and go to trial,” but his attorney failed to follow his 23 directions. ECF No. 1 at 2. The petition is a challenge to the guilty plea and manner in 24 which the plea occurred, not a challenge to the execution of a sentence properly brought 25 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 169-70 (9th Cir. 26 1990) (recognizing that a petition under Section 2241 challenges the manner of the 27 execution of a sentence, whereas Section 2255 challenges the propriety of the sentence 28 itself). Additionally, Petitioner has already filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant 1 || to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in his criminal case and the Court will address that motion. The Court 2 || therefore DISMISSES this case opened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk 3 || of Court to close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: July 16, 2026 7 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28