RONALD WHITE, District Judge
Petitioner, an inmate who is incarcerated in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pleading on part of this court's habeas corpus form, but he alleges he is not filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket #1). Instead, he claims this action is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act. The respondent is named as "Oklahoma/USA Esq." Although the petition is difficult to read and to understand, petitioner asserts he is "seek[ing] a type of release in this action." (Docket #1 at 1). In addition, he alleges he has been falsely imprisoned and has been denied an appeal in Arizona. (Docket #1 at 2).
Petitioner also makes vague allegations of assault by an officer, threats against him by the Arizona Department of Corrections, and his desire to be placed in federal protective custody. (Docket #1 at 2). None of these claims is appropriate for a habeas corpus action.
Plaintiff is a frequent litigator who has had many previous cases dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Cota v. Baltimore/Honolulu Nat'l U.S. Cts., No. Civ. 07-443-HG-LEK, slip op. at 2-3 n. 1 (D. Haw. Sept. 7, 2007) (finding plaintiff's pleading "nearly incomprehensible" and dismissing action as frivolous) (citing Cota v. United States Attorney's Office, S. Dist. of Cal., No. 04-1001-IEG ((S.D. Cal. June 30, 2004) (dismissed as frivolous); Cota v. City of Okla. City, No. Civ. 04-479 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 13, 2004) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Cota v. Okla. Responsible Roes, No. Civ. 04-480 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 13, 2004) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Cota v. CA, No. Civ. 04-3203-UA-JWJ (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2004) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to pay filing fee); Cota v. A.T. T., No. Civ. 04-3447 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2004) (dismissed as frivolous); and Cota v. Casey, No. Civ. 04-5090-MBM (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (dismissed as frivolous)).
Construing the petition liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the court finds petitioner is attempting to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking the court for earlier release. "A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined." Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Because petitioner is confined in Florence, Arizona, he must pursue any § 2241 claims in that district.
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Docket #1] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.