Licona v. McDowell

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/7/2018.(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

Case No.: 16CV3065-JLS-KSC
CHRISTOPHER LICONA,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner,
v.
NEIL MCDOWELL,
Respondent.

13
14

On December 19, 2016, Petitioner Christopher Licona filed a Petition for Writ of

15

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). At the time the petition was

16

filed, Petitioner was a prisoner at Ironwood State Prison in Riverside County, California.

17

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator website, Petitioner is currently

18

in federal custody in Phoenix, Arizona.

19

On May 8, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced by this Court to a term of 30 months’

20

imprisonment for the offense of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation in violation

21

of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.1 Petitioner seeks to modify the sentence imposed by this Court so

22

that the term of imprisonment will run concurrent to the sentence for which Petitioner

23

was serving in state court custody.

24
25

There are several legal barriers to Petitioner’s request. First, Petitioner’s request
appears to be moot as he is no longer in state court custody. Second, a petition for habeas

26
27

28

1

California Southern District Case No. 08CR4581-JLS.
1
16CV3065-JLS-KSC

1

corpus relief pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not a remedy available to Petitioner on these

2

grounds or in this forum. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is applicable to claims challenging the

3

manner, location, or execution of the sentence and such claims must be brought in the

4

district of confinement. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

Although a convicted defendant who is still federal custody and claims that his

6

sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution may move to have his sentence

7

vacated, set aside, or corrected under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner is not challenging the

8

legality of the sentence imposed by this Court. Thus, the Court cannot construe the

9

petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For these reasons, the Court will hereby

10

Dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2018

13
14
15

COPY:

16

Christopher Licona
Reg. No. 12031298
FCI Phoenix
37900 N. 45th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85086

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
16CV3065-JLS-KSC