895 F.2d 1418
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Emmett DOUGHERTY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-3071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 1990.*
Decided Feb. 9, 1990.
Before CANBY, BRUNETTI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
William Emmett Dougherty, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 and motions for appointment of counsel and credit of jail time under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3568, and the district court's order declining to rule on his motion for reconsideration.1 We affirm.
A habeas corpus petition must be filed in the district court in the district where the prisoner is confined because a writ of habeas corpus can issue only from a court with personal jurisdiction over the prisoner or his or her custodian. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). Dougherty was confined in federal prison in Dublin, California when he filed his habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Dougherty's habeas corpus petition. See Dunne, 875 F.2d at 249-50; Giddings, 740 F.2d at 772. The district court's orders are therefore affirmed.2
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Dougherty's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3
Dougherty's earlier appeal from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition was ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because his reconsideration motion was pending before the district court. United States v. Dougherty, Order No. 87-3050 (9th Cir. July 1, 1987)
Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Dougherty's petition, we do not reach the merits of Dougherty's motion for credit of jail time for time spent in a drug treatment program while on probation, his motion for appointment of counsel before the district court, or his reconsideration motion