1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 CLIFFORD SCHUETT, Case No. 2:20-cv-00212-RFB-EJY 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 U.S. MARSHALS, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13 Clifford Schuett, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Nevada Southern 14 Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada, initiated this action on January 30, 2020, by filing 15 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1-1). 16 Schuett did not pay the filing fee for this action but filed an Application to Proceed 17 In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Schuett’s application is not on the required form and is 18 incomplete in that it does not include a certificate signed by a prison officer certifying the 19 amount of funds in his institutional accounts. See D. Nev. Civ. R. LSR 1-1, 1-2. The Court 20 will deny Schuett’s in forma pauperis application and dismiss this action without prejudice, 21 primarily for that reason. 22 23 1 Furthermore, Schuett’s petition pursuant to

is frivolous on its 2 face. Schuett claims that he is serving a four-month prison sentence because his federal 3 supervised release was revoked on the basis of false charges. (ECF No. 1-1). 4 “A motion under [

] is generally the exclusive remedy for a federal

5 prisoner who seeks to challenge the legality of confinement.” Muth v. Fondren,

(9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied,

(2012); Harrison v. Ollison,

(9th Cir. 2008). See also

(e). Generally, a federal prisoner may 8 file a habeas petition under

only to attack the “execution” of his 9 sentence, not to attack its validity. Hernandez v. Campbell,

(9th Cir. 10 2000) (citations omitted); Porter v. Adams,

(9th Cir. 2001). 11 The Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings governing Petitioner’s conviction 12 in case No. 2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF-1. On January 15, 2020, Schuett was sentenced to 13 the term of incarceration he is currently serving. ECF No. 309, No. 2:14-cr-00364-JAD- 14 GWF-1. Since he was sentenced, Schuett filed several pro se motions in that case (ECF

15 Nos. 310, 313, 315, 317, 318 and 319), including at least two in which he claims that he 16 is incarcerated based on false charges (ECF Nos. 315, 319), which were subsequently 17 stricken. ECF No. 324, No. 2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF-1. Schuett makes no allegation that 18 a motion under

is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 19 detention.” See

(e). Therefore, a motion under

is 20 Schuett’s exclusive remedy and the Court dismisses the action on this additional basis. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in District 22 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 23 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 3]| accordingly. 4 DATED this 16th day of July, 2020. 5 AS RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

-3-