DANNY FABRICANT V. J. SHARTLE, No. 17-16275 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANNY FABRICANT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16275 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00074-JGZ v. MEMORANDUM* J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). we affirm. In his section 2241 habeas petition, Fabricant challenged the constitutionality of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under section 2241 because it does not concern “the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabricant’s section 2241 petition. AFFIRMED. 2 17-16275

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.