Leanthony T. Winston v. B. M. TRATE, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
B. M. TRATE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 23-15187
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-07009-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023 **
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner LeAnthony T. Winston appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Tripati v. Henman,
843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
* 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
SEP 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-15187
Winston’s § 2241 petition, filed in the Northern District of California,
alleged claims challenging the validity of his conviction from the Eastern District
of Virginia.1 As the district court noted, these types of claims must generally be
raised in a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct.
1857, 1866 (2023) (discussing history and scope of § 2255 motions). Winston
asserts that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective because federal agents
failed to recognize his rights, and he is unable to research state law due to the
conditions of his confinement. These arguments fail to demonstrate that “unusual
circumstances make it impossible or impracticable [for Winston] to seek relief in
the sentencing court.” Id. at 1868. Winston thus has not shown his claims can be
brought in a § 2241 petition under § 2255(e)’s saving clause. See id. at 1866-68
(discussing scope of saving clause). Moreover, Winston’s claims relating to the
conditions of his confinement are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Pinson
v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that allegations of
“ancillary harms resulting from the conditions of confinement” cannot be raised in
a § 2241 petition). The district court therefore properly dismissed his petition for
lack of jurisdiction. See Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. Finally, Winston’s mere
1 Winston was housed at USP – Atwater, which is located in Merced County, when
he filed the § 2241 petition. The proper custodial court was therefore the Eastern
District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). We will not remand for that district
court to consider Winston’s petition because, for the reasons stated in this
disposition, Winston’s claims cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-15187
allegation that the district judge should have recused himself due to a financial
interest is insufficient to demonstrate an appearance of impropriety. See Martinez
v. Ryan, 926 F.3d 1215, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2019) (appearance of impropriety cannot
be shown through unfounded speculation).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --