Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01823/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01823-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD BUSHELMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL ADLER, Warden, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01823 AWI SMS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Docs. 1, 2]

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 for writ of habeas corpus on December 14, 2007. 

Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Taft Correctional Institution, in Taft, California, serving

a fifty-two month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. 

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that he is currently in custody pursuant to an

Act of Congress which did not comply with the minimum mandatory requirement of Article 3 of

the United States Constitution. Specifically, he contends that he “is an American Citizen and not

subject to the jurisdiction of United States District Court in order to confer jurisdiction against

the person of the Petitioner, thus the court render conviction against the corpus of the Petitioner

is null and void.” (Petition, at 6.) 

Title 28, of the United States Code, section 2241(c) states:

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless- -

(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United

Case 1:07-cv-01823-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/04/08 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

States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or

(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an

Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a

court or judge of the United States; or

(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States; or

(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in

custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title,

authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the

commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color

thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of

nations; or

(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).

Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states, in relevant part, “The

judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior

Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Title 28, of the United

States Code, Section 134, lists the District Courts defined by Congress. 28 U.S.C. § 132

(Creation and composition of district courts). Title 28, of the United States Code, Section 92,

identifies Idaho, exclusive of Yellowstone National Park, as one judicial district. Court shall be

held at Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, and Pocatello. 28 U.S.C. § 92. Petitioner’s claim that

the United States District Court for the District of Idaho was without jurisdiction over him is

simply unfounded. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim must be dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable claim. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable claim; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:07-cv-01823-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/04/08 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01823-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3