(HC)Biyiklioglu v. Warden of USP Lompoc ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIRAY C. BIYIKLIOGLU, Case No. 1:21-cv-01738-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 WARDEN OF USP LOMPOC, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in disciplinary 20 segregation and the loss of good conduct time. (ECF No. 1 at 1–3). “Habeas corpus jurisdiction 21 is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a [federal] prisoner’s claims ‘that he has been denied 22 good time credits’ or ‘subjected to greater restrictions of his liberty, such as disciplinary 23 segregation, without due process of law.’” Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. App’x 192, 193 (9th Cir. 24 2020) (quoting Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)). However, “petitions that 25 challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant 26 to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). As 27 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCC Lompoc, venue is proper in the district of 1 | App’x 596 (9th Cir. 2020) (§ 2241 petition challenging disciplinary proceeding and credit loss 2 | must be heard in custodial court). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 4 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7} Dated: _December 9, 2021 [sf ey g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28