Rasheen Fairly v. United States

MEMORANDUM

Prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1996 jury conviction resulting in a mandatory life sentence. We review de novo the district court’s application of collateral estoppel. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The facts of this ease are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

Collateral estoppel prevents parties from relitigating issues that were adjudicated in a previous dispute between the same parties. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992). Collateral estoppel applies when “(1) the issue at stake [is] identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue [was] actually litigated in the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation [was] a critical and necessary part of the judgment in the action.” Id.

Collateral estoppel prevents Fairly from relitigating the issue of whether he may file a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . See…