Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00492/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00492-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, No. CIV S-07-0492 MCE GGH P

vs.

TRAVIS EDWARD ROUSE, 

 Movant. ORDER

 /

Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence, which the court construes to have been brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Although movant purports to have brought his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241, he expressly states that he has brought the motion “to vacate, set aside or correct an illegal

sentence,” concedes that he has not filed any prior motion attacking his sentence, and alleges that

his sentence violates the double jeopardy clause. Motion, pp. 6-29. He attempts to proceed

under § 2241, largely on the ground that he believes a § 2255 motion would be untimely. 

Motion, p. 4. 

Although movant is presently incarcerated in this district, movant was sentenced

in the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa. A motion pursuant to § 2255 is

generally properly brought in the sentencing court. Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th

Case 2:07-cv-00492-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Cir. 2006)(“[t]he 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, see Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d

1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2003) (as amended), and that restrictions on the availability of a § 2255

motion cannot be avoided through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”); Porter v. Adams, 244

F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2001)(“[a] section 2255 motion to the sentencing court is generally the

proper vehicle for challenging a conviction”), citing § 28 U.S .C. § 2255 and Tripati v. Henman,

843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). 

This court finds that the Northern District of Iowa has jurisdiction over this

matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred, under 28 U.S.C. §

1631, to the proper district, the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

DATED: 4/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

rous0492.trs

Case 2:07-cv-00492-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2