William John Green v. Jack Fox

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JOHN GREEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JACK FOX,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-56403
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05420-DMG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner William John Green appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section
2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011),
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56403
and we affirm.
Green’s section 2241 petition alleges various claims relating to his
incarceration at multiple federal facilities. We need not determine whether the
district court properly dismissed these claims because Green’s release from
custody has rendered them moot. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98
(9th Cir. 1997).
Green also challenges his conviction, alleging that he is actually innocent
because he could not have formed the requisite mens rea. The record shows that
Green cannot establish he “has not had an unobstructed procedural shot” at
presenting this claim in a timely section 2255 motion, and, therefore, he cannot
meet this “escape hatch” requirement. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961
(9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the district court
properly dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 961. To the extent
that Green challenges the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction and
sentence, his conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish his actual
innocence for purposes of the “escape hatch.” See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190,
1193 (9th Cir. 2012).
Green’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file
the brief at Docket Entry No. 53.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --