Danny Fabricant v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY FABRICANT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-16275
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00074-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16275
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unpublished order.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 of 2 --