Case Name: Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 707 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 17-16275
Parties: Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 902–902

Head Matter:
Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-16275
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Danny Fabricant, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
In his section 2241 habeas petition, Fab-ricant challenged the constitutionality, of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under section 2241 because it does not concern "the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence's execution." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabri-cant's section 2241 petition.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.