Dustin Wade Ruffino v. Fed. Bd. of Prisons

D. Utah

Dustin Wade Ruffino v. Fed. Bd. of Prisons

District Court, D. Utah·Decided October 31, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00360·Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

DUSTIN WADE RUFFINO,

MEMORANDUM DECISION & Petitioner, TRANSFER ORDER

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00360-DBB

FED. BD. OF PRISONS, District Judge David Barlow

Respondent.

The Court now reviews Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 (2025). Though Petitioner was sentenced in this district, United States v. Ruffino, 2:22-cr-00257-DBB-1 (D. Utah Feb. 15, 2024), he is now being held in federal prison in Adelanto, California. (ECF No. 1.) In general, like the petition at hand, a § 2241 petition is used to attack a sentence’s execution, not its validity. See Spotts v. Stancil, 793 F. App’x 702, 704 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). And a § 2241 matter must be filed in the district in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Id.; see also Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining § 2241 petition is properly filed in district where inmate confined at filing time). Thus, this petition should have been filed in California’s Central District. (ECF No. 1.) “A court may sua sponte cure . . . venue defects by transferring a suit under the federal transfer statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, when it is in the interests of justice,” or the Court may instead “dismiss the action without prejudice.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) (2025) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought .. . .”); id. § 1631 (stating when “court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action... to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action . . . shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. DATED this 31st day of October, 2025. BY THE COURT: SS JUDGE DAVID BARLOW United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

DUSTIN WADE RUFFINO,

MEMORANDUM DECISION & Petitioner, TRANSFER ORDER

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00360-DBB

FED. BD. OF PRISONS, District Judge David Barlow

Respondent.

The Court now reviews Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 (2025). Though Petitioner was sentenced in this district, United States v. Ruffino, 2:22-cr-00257-DBB-1 (D. Utah Feb. 15, 2024), he is now being held in federal prison in Adelanto, California. (ECF No. 1.) In general, like the petition at hand, a § 2241 petition is used to attack a sentence’s execution, not its validity. See Spotts v. Stancil, 793 F. App’x 702, 704 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). And a § 2241 matter must be filed in the district in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Id.; see also Howard v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 487 F.3d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining § 2241 petition is properly filed in district where inmate confined at filing time). Thus, this petition should have been filed in California’s Central District. (ECF No. 1.) “A court may sua sponte cure . . . venue defects by transferring a suit under the federal transfer statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, when it is in the interests of justice,” or the Court may instead “dismiss the action without prejudice.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) (2025) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought .. . .”); id. § 1631 (stating when “court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action... to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action . . . shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. DATED this 31st day of October, 2025. BY THE COURT: SS JUDGE DAVID BARLOW United States District Court

Dustin Wade Ruffino v. Fed. Bd. of Prisons, (D. Utah 2025).

Pincite

Dustin Wade Ruffino v. Fed. Bd. of Prisons (Dustin Wade Ruffino v. Fed. Bd. of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related