Bell v. Thompson ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 KENNETH M. BELL, Case No. 3:19-cv-00467-LRH-WGC 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 WARDEN, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13 Kenneth M. Bell, a federal prisoner at FCI Herlong, in Herlong, California, 14 initiated this habeas corpus action, pro se, on August 8, 2019, by filing an application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), a habeas petition (ECF No. 1-1), a petition 16 requesting immediate release (ECF No. 1-2), and two motions to correct sentence 17 (ECF Nos. 1-3 and 1-4). Bell alleges that the Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated his 18 sentence, which was imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District 19 of California, that his sentence should be considered expired, and that he should be 20 released from custody. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1). Bell has 21 drafted his petition as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. Bell states that he has 22 also filed such a petition in the Eastern District of California. See id. 23 A habeas petition by a federal prisoner generally must be initiated in the federal 24 district in which the petitioner is held, see Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) 25 (“district of confinement” rule), or the district where the sentence was imposed, see 26 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“the court which imposed the sentence”). Bell’s sentence was 27 imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and he 1 || the proper venue for this action; there plainly is none. The Court will, therefore, 2 || summarily dismiss this action. As Bell states that he has also initiated such an action in 3 || the Eastern District of California, the Court need not consider transferring this action to 4 || that court. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all the Petitioner's motions (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2, 7 || 1-3, 1-4) are denied as moot. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as reasonable jurists would not find the rulings 9 || in this order to be debatable, the petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 11 || accordingly. 12 13 DATED this 15th day of August, 2019. - 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28