Chase v. Warden, USP Beaumont

Docket 1:21-cv-00521

Filed
2021-10-18
Terminated
2022-02-11
Case type
cv

Outcome

other dismissal

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=40 OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2100521 FILEDATE=10/18/2021 DISP=14, PROCPROG=12, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BENJAMIN CHASE, Case No. 21-cv-07566-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ll Defendant. 12 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a federal prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The 13 || petition is directed to the execution of Petitioner's sentence in that he contends that prison officials 14 || have unlawfully failed to calculate his presentence time credits. See United States v. Giddings, 3 15 || 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (federal prisoner’s presentence time credit claim relates to the a 16 || execution of his sentence and is properly brought 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 3 17 Petitioner is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, which lies S 18 || within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Venue is 19 || proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, the district of confinement is the preferable forum to review the 21 execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). This petition 22 || therefore is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 15, 2021 25 J 5 | □ 26 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.