01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER TRANSFERRING

§ 2241 PETITION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ENRIQUE LOPEZ APIZUETA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-1763-RSM-JPD

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

§ 2241 PETITION

Petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona who

is proceeding pro se in his attempt to bring this “motion to dismiss detainer.” Petitioner argues

that the immigration detainer to which he is subject “is adversely affecting the [c]onditions of

[his] incarceration and sentence length.” Dkt. No. 1. He appears to argue that the detainer has

erroneously precluded him from being allocated certain sentencing credits and from being

released to a halfway house. Id. Because the motion appears to challenge the manner in which

petitioner’s sentence is being executed, the Court has construed it as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (indicating that petitions that challenge the “manner location, or conditions

of a sentence must be brought pursuant to § 2241"); see also U.S. v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770,

772 (9th Cir. 1984). Having carefully reviewed the petition and the balance of the record, the

Court ORDERS as follows:

Case 2:05-cv-01763-RSM-JPD Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER TRANSFERRING

§ 2241 PETITION

PAGE -2

(1) The petition shall be TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the

 District of Arizona. Unlike a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a § 2241 petition “must be

addressed to the district court which has jurisdiction over [the petitioner] or his custodian.” 

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)); see also United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d

1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2002) (indicating that § 2255 motions must be brought in the

sentencing court). “Without such jurisdiction, [the Court has] no authority to direct the

actions of the restraining officials.” Subias v. Meese, 835 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987). If

the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over the respondent, it “shall, if it is in the

interest of justice, transfer such action . . . to any other such court in which the action . . .

could have been brought at the time it was filed. . . .” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b); Miller v.

Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Because petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix,

Arizona, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has jurisdiction over him

and his current custodian. Accordingly, this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send the petition and the Court record, including a

copy of this Order, to the District Court Clerk for the District of Arizona. The Clerk is further

directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01763-RSM-JPD Document 5 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2