Michael Francois-Bey, a.k.a. Curtis Pitter v. KEATON, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL FRANCOIS-BEY, a.k.a. Curtis
Pitter,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
KEATON, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-17106
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02818-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Michael Francois-Bey appeals, pro se, from the district
court’s judgment, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We review de
novo, see Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), and affirm.
To the extent Francois-Bey’s petition challenged his brief transfer away
* 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
MAR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-17106
from the United States Penitentiary in Lee County, Virginia (“USP Lee”) to face
charges in Arizona, the district court did not err by concluding that his transfer
back to USP Lee rendered that challenge moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d
996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005).
Francois-Bey also contends that he is being detained without authority
because the federal government relinquished custody of him when it temporarily
transferred him to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office pursuant to
a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.1 His contention is foreclosed by our
recent decision in United States v. Brown, 875 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2017),
which confirmed that a prisoner remains in federal custody during any temporary
transfer to a state facility pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Francois-Bey’s remaining contentions attack the legality of his conviction
and sentence. As this court already advised Francois-Bey, those claims must be
raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the District of Kansas where he was
sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-
65 (9th Cir. 2000).
Francois-Bey’s “letter rogatory” is denied.
AFFIRMED.
1 The government’s motion for judicial notice is granted. See Trigueros v.
Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 2 --