United States v. Cameron Griffin

MEMORANDUM

Cameron Scott Griffin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for a hearing pursuant to Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand to the district court.

Griffin filed his petition and motion after this court affirmed his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine. The district court could have construed Griffin’s petition and motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, as long as it complied with certain procedural safeguards. See United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 464 (9th Cir.2000). Instead, the court denied the petition and motion on the merits.

“In general, § 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of detention.” Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000). The availability of this remedy precludes mandamus review. See Pescosolido v. Block, 765 F.2d 827, 829 (9th Cir.1985). Because Griffin could have sought relief by way of a section 2255…