Darnell Wesly Moon v. JOSIAS SALAZAR, Warden - FCI Sheridan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARNELL WESLY MOON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOSIAS SALAZAR, Warden - FCI
Sheridan,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-35454
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00033-JE
MEMORANDUM*
DARNELL WESLY MOON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOSIAS SALAZAR,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-35464
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00034-JE
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Darnell Moon appeals the district court’s orders denying without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042,
1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moon’s petitions for lack of
jurisdiction, because for “core habeas petitioners challenging present physical
confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement."
Moon v. Salazar, 3:20-cv-00033-JE (D. Or. Feb. 13, 2020) (quoting Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 433 (2004))1. Moon was incarcerated in Illinois, but filed
his petitions in the District of Oregon, where he had previously been incarcerated
and where his good-time credits were revoked.
Moon argues that a challenge to the improper revocation of good-time credit
is not a challenge to “present physical confinement.” We disagree. Good-time
credit impacts the duration of confinement, and therefore is a “core” habeas
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 The district court order in Moon v. Salazar, 3:20-cv-00034-JE (D. Or. Feb.
13, 2020), is identical.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

challenge to present physical confinement under Padilla, 542 U.S. at 433; cf.
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79, 81–82 (2005) (describing an action seeking
to restore good-time credit as within the “core” of habeas, since it impacts the
duration of confinement). Similarly, the proper respondent—the individual with
the power to “produce the body,” Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)—is
the warden of Moon’s current prison.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --