1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS KEITH TICHENOR, Case No.: 19cv1596 MMA (JLB)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 L.J. MILUSNIC, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has 19 not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The case cannot proceed until Petitioner 20 has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 Further, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California 22 does not appear to be the proper venue for Petitioner’s claims. In his Petition, Petitioner 23 contends that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 24 U.S.C. § 922(g) is “unconstitutional and/or void according to Rehaif v. United States, No. 25 17-9560 [because] [t]he indictment failed to state all elements required under statute.” 26 (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) He also contends that “[t]he sentencing court failed to include the 27 ‘knowledge’ of prohibit[ed] status as an element of Count III.” (Id.) Generally, motions 28 to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 in the 1 || sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 2 sentence execution must be brought pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] § 2241 in the custodial 3 || court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner is 4 ||currently housed at the United States Prison in Victorville, California, which is within the 5 ||jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of 6 || California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Petitioner is challenging a 7 || federal conviction and sentence which occurred in Missoula, Montana, which is within 8 || the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the District of 9 ||Montana. See 18 U.S.C. § 106. Thus, jurisdiction lies in either the Central District of 10 || California or the District of Montana, but not in the Southern District of California. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. 13 || Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to pursue this case, he should file either a petition 14 || for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court 15 || for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, or a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 || § 2255 in the United States District Court for the District of Montana. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: August 27, 2019 Mikal Ta Ll 19 Hon. Michael M. Anello tolls 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28