Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00532/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00532-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WAYNE ARNETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00532-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION TO

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc.

1). In that petition, Petitioner, who at the time was being temporarily housed in the Fresno

County Jail but was permanently assigned to the United States Penitentiary, Lompoc, California,

contended that Respondent was going to transfer him to the United States Prison, Victorville,

California, without considering appropriate factors that, in Petitioner’s view, should have

resulted in his continued confinement at the Lompoc facility. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule

4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir.1990). 

Case 1:06-cv-00532-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). 1

2

A habeas corpus action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the fact or

duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93. S.Ct. 1827 (1973);

Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

1990); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-892 (9th Cir. 1979). In contrast, a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the defendants are state actors, or proceeding on a Bivens1

theory where the defendants are federal actors, is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge

the conditions of that confinement. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-142 , 111

S.Ct. 1737 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332.

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711 (2004), the United States Supreme

Court clarified the law pertaining to which district court had jurisdiction over petitions filed

under § 2241:

The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a

habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242;

see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having

custody of the person detained”). The consistent use of the definite article in reference to

the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given

prisoner’s habeas petition. This custodian, moreover, is “the person” with the ability to

produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court. Ibid. We summed up the plain

language of the habeas statute over 100 years ago in this way: “[T]hese provisions

contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the

party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or

judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” Wales v.

Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277 (1885)(emphasis added); see also

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35

L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus” acts upon “the person who holds [the

detainee] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody,” citing Wales, supra, at 574, 5 S.Ct.

1050); Braden, supra, at 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (“ ‘[T]his writ ... is directed to ... [the] jailer,’

” quoting In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439-440 (1867)).

Id. at 434-435.

At the time of the filing of this petition, Petitioner, although temporarily housed in the

Fresno County Jail, was permanently incarcerated in the federal facility at Lompoc. As such, the

warden of that facility is the proper custodian of Petitioner and the proper respondent in this case. 

Moreover, Petitioner is challenging his transfer to the Victorville facility. Neither of these

facilities lies within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California; rather, both are within

Case 1:06-cv-00532-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Indeed,

the only connection Petitioner has to this Court is that he was convicted and sentenced in this

District and was temporarily housed here at the time he filed his petition. However, Petitioner is

not challenging his conviction or sentence. 

As the Supreme Court has indicated, there is only one district court with habeas

jurisdiction in this case, and that would be the district court within whose jurisdiction Petitioner

is confined. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434-435. In this case, that would be the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. Hence, the matter should be transferred, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to that District Court.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer this case to

the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00532-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3