Timothy A. Christian v. J. Norwood

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY A. CHRISTIAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. NORWOOD,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56371
D.C. No. CV-05-07877-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Timothy A. Christian appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we dismiss the appeal as moot.
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-56371 2
Christian contends the Bureau of Prisons should have credited 161 days he
spent in Florida state custody against his federal sentence. After the briefing was
completed in this appeal, Christian filed a “Motion to Withdraw and Amend
Without Prejudice,” in which he asserts that the Bureau of Prisons has credited his
federal sentence as he requested. We construe his motion, in part, as a motion to
dismiss the appeal. So construed, we grant that portion of the motion because his
appeal is now moot. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir.
1997).
Christian’s motion also requests that we recommend that the district court
order the Bureau of Prisons to compensate him for his expenses and the mental
anguish he suffered pursuing his claim. Christian’s request is denied as a § 2241
petition is not the proper vehicle for obtaining monetary damages. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330,
331-32 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that a challenge to the execution of a sentence is
maintainable only as a § 2241 petition, whereas a damages claim for civil rights
violations should be construed as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --