The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on September 27, 2010, and on behalf of Respondent on May 23, 2011. Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on September 16, 2010.
Respondent filed an answer to the petition on March 28, 2011. No traverse was filed.
I. Jurisdiction A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a prisoner in custody under the authority of the United States who shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Although a federal prisoner who challenges the validity or constitutionality of his conviction must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of a sentence must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, Petitioner alleges that he was denied procedural rights and due process of law in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing, which resulted in a loss of good conduct time credits. A due process claim concerning parole, good time, or other rules administered by a prison administrator that challenges the duration of a sentence is a cognizable claim of being in custody in violation of the Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). See, e.g., Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (determining a procedural due process claim concerning disciplinary procedures and findings). If a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, it affects the duration of a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the petition.
B. Jurisdiction over the Person
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the district courts "within their respective jurisdictions." A writ of habeas corpus operates not upon the prisoner, but upon the prisoner's custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495 (1973). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). The warden of the penitentiary where a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition, and the petition must be filed in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47 (2004). A failure to name and serve the custodian deprives the Court of personal jurisdiction. Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, at all pertinent times, Petitioner has been incarcerated at the United States Prison at Atwater, California (USPA), which is located within the territory of the Eastern District of California. Petitioner named H. A. Rios, the Warden of USPA, as Respondent.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over the Respondent.
II. Factual and Procedural Summary The facts and procedural history are derived from copies of reports that were filed by Respondent in support of the answer and that are established by the declaration of Robert J. Ballash, Discipline Hearing Administrator of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to be true and accurate copies of documents created and maintained by the BOP in the ordinary course of business. (Doc. 8-1, 2-7.)
The incident report of Correctional Officer B. Pavey dated October 3, 2009, reflects that on that date, Officer Pavey discovered a sharpened metal object approximately six and one-half inches long while he was conducting a random search of a cell that Petitioner shared with another inmate. The object was found magnetized underneath the door of the cell. Petitioner told both the investigating officer and the unit disciplinary committee that the object was his. (Ans., doc. 8-1 at 16-17.) Petitioner assured the committee that his cell mate had nothing to do with it, and Petitioner was going to take responsibility for the object. (Id. at 16.) Evidence before the disciplinary fact finder also included a photograph of the object. (Ans., doc. 8-2 at 3, 6.)
Petitioner received a copy of the incident report on October 4, 2009. (Ans., doc. 8-1, 16.) The unit disciplinary committee referred the charge to the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) for further hearing and consideration of sanctions on October 5, 2009. (Id.) On October 5, 2009, Petitioner signed a notice of referral of the charge of possession of a weapon to the DHO; he stated that he did not wish to have a staff representative or witnesses. ...