United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
ALEXIS SALAZAR-TRIVINO REG. # 61736-018
DIRECTOR BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.
UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is a pro se petition filed by Alexis
Salazar-Trivino and other inmates, originally filed as a
civil rights action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. Doc. 1. That court construed the
petition as one requesting habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, severed it as to individual petitioners, and
transferred the cases to the districts where petitioners were
incarcerated. See doc. 34. Accordingly, this matter
was transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi,
where the petitioner is presently in custody, and finally to
this court, where the petitioner's claims of improper
confinement arose at the Federal Correctional Institute at
Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”). Id.; doc.
45. It now comes before the undersigned for initial review
under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this
filed this action with several other inmates then
incarcerated at FCIO, alleging that they were being
improperly detained there. Doc. 1. Since that time, however,
Salazar-Trivino was transferred to Adams County Correctional
Center/Correctional Institute Adams County in Washington,
Mississippi, a contract facility of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”). A search of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons' inmate locator reveals that he is still in
BOP custody. Salazar-Trivino declined to file a separate 2241
petitions on the forms provided in the Southern District of
Mississippi. See docs. 39-41. Accordingly, the only
allegations Salazar-Trivino has provided in support of his
request for habeas relief are the general allegations in the
original, collective petition that the petitioners'
extradition to the United States from Central America and
conviction here of various federal crimes amounts to a
violation of constitutional rights and international law.
Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions
district court may apply any and all of the rules governing
habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those
filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states
that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at
Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition
must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real
possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at
Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v.
Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly,
we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine
whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the
petition must be dismissed.
§ 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner
“attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out
or the prison authorities' determination of its
duration.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451
(5th Cir. 2000). In order to prevail, a § 2241
petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
petition, which appears to allege errors in his extradition
proceedings and sentencing, is a collateral attack on his
conviction. Such attacks are generally limited to a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255.Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d
827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2241 petition is
properly construed as a § 2255 motion if it seeks relief
based on errors that occurred at trial or sentencing.
Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877-78. Habeas relief based on