Snyder et al v. United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Furthermore, only the sentencing court, i.e., the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, has jurisdiction over this petition. Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to theUnited States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Clerk shall transfer this matter and terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/28/2015. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ROBIN NEIL SNYDER,
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15

Respondent.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 15-02450 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF TRANSFER

17
18

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

19

U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his federal conviction out of the United States District

20

Court for the District of Maryland. Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment

21

Right to due process was violated because the government withheld exculpatory

22

evidence that would have exonerated Petitioner and proved his actual innocence.

23

(Docket No. 1 at 2.)

24

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court who wishes to attack

25

collaterally the validity of his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion

26

to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to § 2255 in the court which

27

imposed the sentence. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988),

28

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982 (1988). Only the sentencing court has jurisdiction. See
Order of Transfer
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\02450Snyder_transfer.wpd

1

id. at 1163. A prisoner may not attack collaterally a federal conviction or sentence

2

by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

3

Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenge to sentence

4

following probation or parole revocation must be brought in sentencing court via §

5

2255 motion); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162 (challenge to legality of conviction must be

6

brought in sentencing court via § 2255 motion); see also United States v. Flores, 616

7

F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980) (where challenge is to alleged errors at or prior to

8

sentencing remedy is § 2255 motion, not § 2241 writ).

conviction rather than its execution, the petition should have been filed under 28

11
For the Northern District of California

Because it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of his

10

United States District Court

9

U.S.C. § 2255 rather than § 2241. See Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162. Furthermore, only

12

the sentencing court, i.e., the United States District Court for the District of

13

Maryland, has jurisdiction over this petition. See id. at 1163.

14
15
16

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The Court also notes that Petitioner indicated on the petition that he was

17

filing it “In the United States District Court for the 9th Circuit.”1 (Docket No. 1 at

18

1.) To the extent that Petitioner may have intended to file an appeal, he should do so

19

in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has appellate

20

jurisdiction over the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

21

The Clerk shall transfer this matter and terminate any pending motions.

22
23

DATED:

9/28/2015

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
1

26
27
28

Petitioner states that the “US District Court for the 9th Circuit” has
jurisdiction over this matter because one of the government witnesses against him
resides in California and because the crime for which he was convicted involved
transactions over the internet and took place in the State of California, among
others. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) As discussed above, this matter should have been filed
as a § 2255 petition over which only the sentencing court has jurisdiction.
Order of Transfer
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\02450Snyder_transfer.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN NEIL SNYDER,

Case Number: CV15-02450 EJD

Petitioner,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
9/.30/2015
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robin Neil Snyder
8109 Streamwood Dr
Baltimore, MD 21208
Dated:

9/30/2015
Susan Y. Soong, Clerk
/s/ Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk