Fassler

MEMORANDUM ***

Lawrence A. Fassler (“Fassler” or “appellant”) appeals the district court’s denial *751 of his motion to strike special conditions of parole. Fassler argues that the United States Parole Commission’s (the “Commission” or “appellee”) special parole conditions violated the district court’s and this court’s orders; they were arbitrary and capricious; and they were imposed vindictively.

Appellee contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the district court did not have jurisdiction when it granted Fassler’s motion for release and denied his motion to strike. Whether a district court has jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo. See Dearinger ex rel. Volkova v. Reno, 232 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir.2000). It is well-established that a court has inherent power to enforce its orders. See, e.g., Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 5 (9th Cir.1994); Hook v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrections, 972 F.2d 1012 , 1014 (9th Cir.1992). Here, the district court had inherent jurisdictional power to render a decision on Fassler’s motion because it involved alleged…