1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ERIC LEBRON SPRINGS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00760-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND 13 v. TRANSFERRING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, USP ATWATER, (ECF No. 7) 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to

. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States 20 Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 10.) 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On July 1, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 24 challenging a disciplinary proceeding. (ECF No. 1.) On September 3, 2024, Respondent filed a 25 motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) On January 3, 2025, 26 Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 18.) 27 /// /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding that occurred at the United 4 States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (“USP Atwater”). (ECF No. 1 at 3.) In the motion to 5 dismiss, Respondent argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition because at the time 6 the petition was filed, Petitioner was residing at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, 7 Colorado (“USP Florence”). (ECF No. 7 at 1, 4–5.) Petitioner contends that “this case is subject 8 to dismissal for improper venue and jurisdiction, or in the alternate, subject to transfer to the 9 District of Colorado.” (Id. at 5.) 10 The petition itself states that Petitioner’s place of confinement is USP Florence. (ECF 11 No. 1 at 1.) At the time Petitioner commenced this action and to date, Petitioner has been housed 12 at USP Florence, which is located within the District of Colorado. “Habeas corpus jurisdiction is 13 available under

for a [federal] prisoner’s claims ‘that he has been denied good 14 time credits’ or ‘subjected to greater restrictions of his liberty, such as disciplinary segregation, 15 without due process of law.’” Fiorito v. Entzel,

, 193 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 16 Bostic v. Carlson,

(9th Cir. 1989)). “[P]etitions that challenge the manner, 17 location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the 18 custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell,

(9th Cir. 2000). As Petitioner has 19 been housed at USP Florence throughout the pendency of this action, venue is proper in the 20 district of confinement, which is the District of Colorado. See United States v. Brugnara,

App’x 596 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that § 2241 petition challenging disciplinary proceeding and 22 credit loss must be heard in custodial court). 23 “Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds that there is a want of 24 jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any 25 other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was 26 filed or noticed . . . .”

. Accordingly, rather than dismissal, the Court finds that 27 transfer of the petition to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is 1 Il. 2 ORDER 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART; and 5 2. The petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of 6 Colorado. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 9 | Dated: _ April 17, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28