United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
PETITION (ECF NO. 5)
is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United
States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 4).
is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary
in Atwater, California. The petition states that Petitioner
is currently serving sentences imposed on April 23, 1999 and
June 30, 2000 by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. (ECF No. 1 at 1). On December 2,
2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
challenging the forfeiture and his ineligibility for good
time credit. (Id. at 2). On December 15, 2016,
Petitioner moved the Court for an order transferring the
petition to the Southern District of Florida and for
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5). On January 9, 2017,
Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in support of his
petition. (ECF No. 6).
federal prisoner may challenge the execution of his sentence
by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d 367,
370 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015). A federal prisoner who wishes to
challenge the validity or constitutionality of his federal
conviction or sentence must do so by moving the court that
imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Alaimalo v. United
States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). “The
general rule is that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the
legality of his detention, and that restrictions on the
availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided
through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”
Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir.
2006) (citations omitted).
petition, Petitioner challenges the forfeiture and his
ineligibility for good time credit, arguing that the Federal
Bureau of Prison's credit determination was based on a
void judgments and sentences in case numbers 98-6128-CR-ZLOCH
and 99-6064-CR-WPD (ECF No. 1 at 11; ECF No. 6 at 2, 7).
Although Petitioner purports to contest how his sentence is
being carried out, calculated, or credited, the petition
challenges the validity of Petitioner's underlying
criminal judgments and sentences. Therefore, the appropriate
procedure would be to file a § 2255 motion in the court
that imposed the sentence rather than a § 2241 habeas
petition in this Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion
to transfer the petition shall be granted.
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's
motion for transfer (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and this action is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. This Court has not ruled on
Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No.