1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES BENJAMIN TUCKER, Case Nos. 3:24-CV-01994-GPC 24-CR-1615-GPC 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO VACATE UNDER

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Defendant. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 18 On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition to 19 vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under

. ECF No. 1. He is 20 currently serving a sentence after pleading guilty in Case No. 23-cr-1615-GPC, a case 21 that was before this Court. 22 From the motion, it appears that Plaintiff is actually seeking to challenge the 23 conditions of his confinement. At the time he filed his petition, he was confined at GEO 24 Western Region Detention Facility (WRDF), a privately run facility in San Diego. 25 Currently, the BOP Locator indicates that he is now confined at the U.S. Penitentiary, Big 26 Sandy. He writes that his constitutional rights were violated at WRDF and invokes 27 1 1 || grounds of “cruel and unusual punishment,” “fair and equal treatment for like situated 2 ||inmates,” and “First Amendment violation denying regular access to chapel to practice 3 ||my relion [sic].”

The relief he seeks is “immediate transfer to custody of the Federal 4 || Bureau of Prisons, officially, and designated to a facility of [his] custody level to allow 5 credit earning...” Jd. 6 This is not an appropriate challenge under § 2255. Section 2255 authorizes a court 7 || to “vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence” of a federal prisoner on “the ground that the 8 || sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that 9 || the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in 10 excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”

(a). Plaintiff is not challenging the sentence imposed by this Court. 12 Instead, Plaintiff is challenging the conditions of his confinement and bringing 13 || constitutional claims based on his post-sentence treatment at WRDF. But “[a] petition 14 || under section 2255 can test only the propriety of the sentence imposed, not the manner of 15 execution.” United States v. Giddings,

(9th Cir. 1984). 16 The motion therefore “conclusively show[s] that the prisoner is entitled to no 17 || relief,” and so the Court will not cause notice to be served upon, or require a response 18 from, the United States.

(b); see Rule 4(b) of Rules Governing Section 19 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (“If it plainly appears from the 20 || motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party 21 |/is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion...”). Accordingly, the Court 22 || DISMISSES the petition in this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: December 6, 2024 <=

26 United States District Judge 27 28 ECR. □□□□□□□□