Travis D. Arnold v. B. Lammer

Discussion “Review of the execution of a sentence may be had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984); see, e.g., Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (claim that prison failed to properly credit prisoner’s time in state custody toward his federal sentence must be brought in a § 2241 petition); Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2008) (deciding § 2241 challenge to calculation of good time credits under good time credit statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] federal district court has habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Casas bond hearing determinations [for aliens facing prolonged detention while their petitions for review of their final removal orders are pending] for constitutional claims and legal error.”). Alternatively, apart from a direct appeal, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is typically the exclusive remedy for a federal prisoner who seeks to challenge the validity or legality of his conviction or sentence. Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2012), as amended (May 31, 2012).…