Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0902-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-16275
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Danny Fabricant, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas 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), and we affirm.

In his section 2241 habeas petition, Fab-ricant challenged the constitutionality, of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under section 2241 because it does not concern “the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabri-cant’s section 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.