Christopher L. Harris v. Unknown

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-17649
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01483-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Christopher L. Harris 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, and we affirm.
We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Stephens v.
FILED
FEB 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), and the denial of a motion under Rule
60(b) for abuse of discretion, see Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247, 1248 (9th
Cir. 2012).
Harris’s instant habeas petition, like multiple previous petitions, asserts that
he is entitled to be released from custody because he has “delivered security” to the
United States as payment of a fine imposed following a 1999 conviction in the
Southern District of Indiana. Harris’s Rule 60(b) motion argues that the
government committed fraud on the court by failing to provide accurate
information regarding his fine. The district court properly denied relief.
To the extent Harris challenges the execution of his sentence, he has not
shown (1) cause for bringing a successive petition and that prejudice would result,
or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to
entertain his claim. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991). Insofar
as Harris challenges the legality of his detention, his exclusive remedy is a motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897.
AFFIRMED.
12-17649 2

-- 2 of 2 --