Branon v. United States, 4:13-cv-01350

Branon was convicted in 2003 in the District of Arizona on drug and firearms charges.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction but remanded for resentencing, which occurred in 2006.
The Ninth Circuit again summarily affirmed his sentence in 2008.
Branon filed a §2255 motion in the District of Arizona in 2009 seeking relief from his sentence.
In 2010–2011 a magistrate judge recommended denial and the district court denied the motion; certification of appealability was denied.
Branon filed a new motion in the Northern District of California in 2013 alleging fraud upon the court, which the court construes as a §2255 petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion falls under §2255 in the sentencing district	Branon contends the challenge concerns the legality of his sentence.	Arizona is the proper forum; California lacks jurisdiction for a §2255 petition.	Lacks jurisdiction; improper venue for §2255.
Whether the petition is a successive §2255 requiring permission	No permission from the Ninth Circuit is shown or claimed.	A second or successive §2255 requires circuit permission and is time-barred.	Successive §2255 not permitted without Ninth Circuit authorization.
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1631 was appropriate	Transfer to the District of Arizona would cure jurisdictional issues.	Transfer is not in the interest of justice given untimeliness and the nature of the motion.	District court did not transfer; dismissed rather than transferred.

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (determines where a §2255 challenge must be brought)
Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (constructive framework for when a challenge is a §2255 petition)
Cruz-Aguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (application of the federal transfer statute in habeas proceedings)
United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1998) ( governs jurisdictional issues for successive motions under §2255)
Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) (savings clause context for §2241 relief when §2255 is inadequate)