Case Name: David W. LANIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cameron LINDSAY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-18
Citations: 107 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 04-55543; D.C. No. CV-04-1300-GLT
Parties: David W. LANIER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cameron LINDSAY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 86–87

Head Matter:
David W. LANIER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cameron LINDSAY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-55543.
D.C. No. CV-04-1300-GLT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
David W. Lanier, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Leon W. Weidman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Responden1>-Appellee.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David W. Lanier, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order construing his habeas corpus petition, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and ordering the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Relying upon Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003), Lanier contends that the district court erred in sua sponte recharacterizing his pro se petition as a § 2255 motion without notice and an opportunity to respond. Castro does not apply because this is not Lanier's first § 2255 motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.