Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01596/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01596-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv1596 MMA (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS KEITH TICHENOR,

Petitioner,

v.

L.J. MILUSNIC, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1596 MMA (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has 

not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The case cannot proceed until Petitioner 

has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.

Further, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California 

does not appear to be the proper venue for Petitioner’s claims. In his Petition, Petitioner 

contends that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g) is “unconstitutional and/or void according to Rehaif v. United States, No. 

17-9560 [because] [t]he indictment failed to state all elements required under statute.” 

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) He also contends that “[t]he sentencing court failed to include the 

‘knowledge’ of prohibit[ed] status as an element of Count III.” (Id.) Generally, motions 

to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 in the 

Case 3:19-cv-01596-MMA-JLB Document 4 Filed 08/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1596 MMA (JLB)

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

sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 

sentence execution must be brought pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] § 2241 in the custodial 

court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner is 

currently housed at the United States Prison in Victorville, California, which is within the 

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Petitioner is challenging a 

federal conviction and sentence which occurred in Missoula, Montana, which is within 

the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the District of 

Montana. See 18 U.S.C. § 106. Thus, jurisdiction lies in either the Central District of 

California or the District of Montana, but not in the Southern District of California.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. 

Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to pursue this case, he should file either a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, or a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 in the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01596-MMA-JLB Document 4 Filed 08/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2