1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 ANTON ANDREYEVICH IAGOUNOV, Case No. 1:25-cv-00824-EPG-HC

9 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

10 v. HABEAS CORPUS

11 U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

12 Respondents.

13 14 Petitioner Anton Andreyevich Iagounov is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 15 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain 16 the instant § 2241 petition, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed. 17 I. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On April 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (ECF No. 1.) On 21 July 9, 2025, the case was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 6.) 22 Petitioner challenges his criminal judgment in Case No. 2:24-cr-00101-DJC on the 23 following grounds: (1) extraordinary rendition; (2) cruel and unusual punishment; (3) frivolous 24 indictment; (4) due process violation for infinite detention; (5) inadmissible evidence; (6) tainted 25 jury; (7) probable cause; (8) right to self-representation; (9) involuntary servitude; (10) 26 whistleblower retaliation; (11) sentencing; (12) denial of medical care and religious services; 27 (13) FBI had no jurisdiction; and (14) collusion of U.S. magistrates. (ECF No. 1 at 6–19.1) In his 1 prayer for relief, Petitioner requests the Court: (1) to hold an extradition hearing; (2) to 2 criminally investigate prosecutors’ misconduct; (3) to criminally investigate the United States 3 Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and other federal agencies; (4) for 4 monetary compensation; (5) for immediate release; (6) to investigate conflicts of interest 5 between the jurors, prosecution, and court-appointed defense counsel; and (7) to investigate U.S. 6 magistrate judges. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a 10 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 11 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 12 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 13 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 14 A. Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 15 A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal 16 conviction or sentence must do so by moving the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set 17 aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 18 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). “The general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive 19 means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention, and that restrictions on 20 the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241.” Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 22 Nevertheless, a “savings clause” or “escape hatch” exists in § 2255(e) by which a federal 23 prisoner may seek relief under § 2241 if he can demonstrate the remedy available under § 2255 24 to be “inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention.” Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1047 25 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 26

27 2 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 1 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 2 curiam). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow exception. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 3 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). The remedy under § 2255 usually will not be deemed 4 inadequate or ineffective merely because a prior § 2255 motion was denied, or because a remedy 5 under § 2255 is procedurally barred. Id. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the remedy 6 is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States, 315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963). 7 “Before proceeding to the merits of a § 2241 petition ostensibly brought pursuant to the 8 ‘escape hatch’ of § 2255, a district court must resolve the threshold question whether a petition 9 was properly brought under § 2241 or whether the filing should instead be construed as a § 2255 10 motion.” Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 11 865. A petitioner may proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause when the petitioner 12 “(1) makes a claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an ‘unobstructed procedural shot’ at 13 presenting that claim.” Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898 (citing Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060). 14 With respect to the first requirement, in the Ninth Circuit a claim of actual innocence for 15 purposes of the § 2255 savings clause is tested by the standard articulated by the Supreme Court 16 in Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898. In Bousley, the 17 Supreme Court explained that “[t]o establish actual innocence, petitioner must demonstrate that, 18 in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have 19 convicted him.” 523 U.S. at 623 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 20 With respect to the second requirement, “it is not enough that the petitioner is presently 21 barred from raising his claim of innocence by motion under § 2255. He must never have had the 22 opportunity to raise it by motion.” Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060. To determine whether Petitioner never 23 had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim, the Court considers “(1) whether the 24 legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and 25 first § 2255 motion;’ and (2) whether the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim 26 after that first § 2255 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060–61). 27 The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements to proceed pursuant 1 shot at presenting his claims. Here, Petitioner has not exhausted his direct appeal nor previously 2 filed a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Iagounov, No. 25-1052 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 20, 2025); 3 Docket, United States v. Iagounov, No. 2:24-cr-00101-DJC (E.D. Cal.).3 Therefore, Petitioner 4 cannot show that the “legal basis” for Petitioner’s claims raised in the instant petition “did not 5 arise until after Petitioner exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion,” and there is no 6 indication that “the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 7 motion.” Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (quoting Ivy, 328 F.3d at 1060–61). 8 B. Recharacterization of § 2241 Petition as § 2255 Motion 9 As this Court is both the custodial and sentencing court, the Court may construe the 10 instant petition as a § 2255 motion and resolve the motion. See Muth, 676 F.3d at 818 n.2. 11 However, courts recognize that “by recharacterizing as a first § 2255 motion a pro se litigant’s 12 filing that did not previously bear that label, the court may make it significantly more difficult 13 for that litigant to file another such motion.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003). 14 See United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that “a district 15 court’s recharacterization could have a detrimental impact on the prisoner”). Thus, the district 16 courts’ “recharacterization powers are limited in the following way:”

17 The limitation applies when a court recharacterizes a pro se litigant’s motion as a first § 2255 motion. In such circumstances 18 the district court must notify the pro se litigant that it intends to recharacterize the pleading, warn the litigant that this 19 recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on “second or successive” motions, 20 and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he believes he 21 has. 22 Castro, 540 U.S. at 383. 23 Here, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas 24 petition rather than recharacterize it as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As noted above, 25 3 The Court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 26 system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). See also United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may 27 take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, which may include court records available through PACER.”); Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) 1 | Petitioner’s Ninth Circuit appeal is still pending, and “[t]he district court ‘will not review a 2 | section 2255 motion until the direct appeal is resolved.’” United States v. LaFromboise, 427 F.3d 3 | 680, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 298 (9th Cir. 1997)). 4 Il. 5 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 7 | writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 8 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 9 | the present matter. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 12 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 14 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 15 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 17 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 18 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 19 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 20 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23| Dated: _ September 16, 2025 [see ey

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28