IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 25, 2012
BRANDON MICHAEL MEYER, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL BABCOCK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, petitioner alleges that the district court erred as there was no factual basis to find him guilty of a firearm offense and the evidence failed to establish his possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Petitioner states the crime occurred in Iowa, so the undersigned assumed petitioner was tried and sentenced in the District of Iowa, though it is not clear if it was the northern or southern district. Petitioner shall show cause in 14 days why this case should not be construed as a § 2255 motion and transferred.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause in 14 days why this case should not be construed as a § 2255 motion and transferred.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.