— gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:26-cv-03610 · 2026-08-14 · Unknown

Jose Gonzalez Lizarraga v. Robert C. Marshall, Warden, FCI Lompoc II

Proceeding: original
Outcome: other — § 3624(b)(1).
Area: civil
Panel: Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:21Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by a federal inmate in the Southern District of California, alleging that the Bureau of Prisons failed to apply First Step Act credits to his sentence. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, determining that venue lay in the Central District of California, and declined to transfer the case because the petition failed to allege sufficient facts or demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction “Accordingly, Defendant’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”	agree with court The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions challenging the execution of a sentence must be filed in the district of confinement. Because the petitioner is confined in FCI Lompoc II, which is located in the Central District of California, the Southern District of California lacks jurisdiction. The court's decision to dismiss rather than transfer is procedurally sound given the petitioner's failure to provide specific facts regarding the miscalculation or demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies, which are prerequisites for a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
Denial of transfer to the Central District of California “The Court declines to transfer this matter to the Central District of California because the Petition fails to set forth sufficient facts to enable the Court to conclude whether a transfer would be in furtherance of justice.”	agree with court While courts often transfer § 2241 petitions to the district of confinement, they are not required to do so if the petition is facially deficient. The order notes the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not provide specific facts about the alleged error. Dismissing a deficient petition rather than transferring it is a permissible exercise of discretion, particularly when the petition does not establish a colorable claim that would survive in the proper venue.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction

“Accordingly, Defendant’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

agree with court
The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions challenging the execution of a sentence must be filed in the district of confinement. Because the petitioner is confined in FCI Lompoc II, which is located in the Central District of California, the Southern District of California lacks jurisdiction. The court's decision to dismiss rather than transfer is procedurally sound given the petitioner's failure to provide specific facts regarding the miscalculation or demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies, which are prerequisites for a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).

Denial of transfer to the Central District of California

“The Court declines to transfer this matter to the Central District of California because the Petition fails to set forth sufficient facts to enable the Court to conclude whether a transfer would be in furtherance of justice.”

agree with court
While courts often transfer § 2241 petitions to the district of confinement, they are not required to do so if the petition is facially deficient. The order notes the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not provide specific facts about the alleged error. Dismissing a deficient petition rather than transferring it is a permissible exercise of discretion, particularly when the petition does not establish a colorable claim that would survive in the proper venue.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the jurisdictional rule for § 2241 petitions, citing the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Doganiere) to establish that venue lies in the district of confinement. The court's refusal to transfer is supported by the record's indication that the petition is factually sparse and lacks a showing of administrative exhaustion. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional defect.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GONZALEZ LIZARRAGA, CASE NO.: 26-CV-3610-JLS-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 ROBERT C. MARSHALL, WARDEN, FCI LOMPOC II, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Jose Gonzalez Lizarraga, an inmate in federal custody, moves this 19 Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the grounds that FCI 20 Lompoc II is failing to apply First Step Act credit to his sentence calculation. 21 Because it challenges the manner of the execution of his sentence, Petitioner’s 22 claim is appropriately brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doganiere v. United 23 States, 914 F.2d 165, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that a petition under 24 Section 2241 challenges the manner of the execution of a sentence, whereas 25 Section 2255 challenges the propriety of the sentence itself). However, jurisdiction 26 for a Section 2241 petition lies in the district of confinement, id. at 170, which in 27 this case is the Central District of California. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 28 consider Petitioner’s claim. 1 The Court declines to transfer this matter to the Central District of California 2 || because the Petition fails to set forth sufficient facts to enable the Court to conclude 3 || whether a transfer would be in furtherance of justice. Defendant does not 4 || demonstrate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, nor does he provide 5 || any specific facts or details about the nature of the alleged miscalculation.! 6 || Accordingly, Defendant’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 7 || 2241 is Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 8 SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: August 14, 2026 (i en il on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |! 1 From what the Court is able to piece together from the criminal case docket, 22- 27 || Hefendani’s current Scheduled release date is 24 Tronths Tess than his 80-month 2g || Sentence, thus it appears that some sentence credit has been applied beyond the 15% good time credit authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1).