Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00666-1/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

GARMON COATS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00666 LJO DLB HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 13, 2008. (Court Doc. 1.)

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside,

or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th

Cir.1988); Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d

245, 249 (3rd 1997); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases,

only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not

collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991);

Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). 

Case 1:08-cv-00666-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 06/11/08 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

2

In contrast, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d

175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991);

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476,

478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987);

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). A habeas corpus petition under §

2241 must be brought in the judicial district of the petitioner’s custodian. Hernandez v.

Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9 Cir. 2000); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. th

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”). Thus, the proper respondent for

this habeas petition is the petitioner’s warden. See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378,

379 (9 Cir. 1992). Here, Petitioner has named the United States Bureau of Prisons as the th

Respondent; however, the Bureau of Prisons cannot be considered the person having day-to-day

control over Petitioner.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition

for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326,

1326 (9th Cir. 1970); see, also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd

Cir. 1976). However, in this case, the Court will give petitioner the opportunity to cure his defect

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent. See, West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026,

1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en banc)

(allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by

AMENDING the Petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. To comply with this directive petitioner need

Case 1:08-cv-00666-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 06/11/08 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

only submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which he amends the

petition to name a proper respondent. As noted above, that individual is the

person having day to day custody over petitioner - usually the warden of the

institution where he is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly

captioned as such and include the case number referenced above, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00666-LJO-DLB Document 5 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 3