Gago de Medeiros v. California Superior Court

Filing 12

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the USDC of Arizona. Order Granting Motions 3 ; 6 for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/21/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011) [Transferred from cand on 4/22/2011.]

1
2
3
*E-FILED - 4/21/11*

4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JULIAN GAGO DE MEDEIROS,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
14
15

SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-5385 RMW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER OF
TRANSFER
(Docket Nos. 3, 6.)

16
17

Petitioner is a federal detainee subject to removal proceedings and currently incarcerated

18

at CCA Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention which is premised upon an

20

allegedly invalid 1995 state conviction. Petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma

21

pauperis are GRANTED. For the reasons stated below, the court does not have jurisdiction to

22

adjudicate this matter, and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court of Arizona.

23

Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state prisoner

24

who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for instance a pre-

25

trial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose conviction has been reversed

26

on appeal. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (pre-trial double

27

jeopardy challenge); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing “awaiting

28

extradition” and pretrial detention as examples of when § 2241 applies). In this case, petitioner’s
Order Granting Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Transfer
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Medeiros385trans.wpd

1

habeas petition must be transferred because jurisdiction does not lie in this district. Section 2241

2

allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge” to grant

3

writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The court

4

has interpreted the “within their respective jurisdictions” language of § 2241 to mean nothing

5

more than that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over the custodian. Rumsfeld v.

6

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440-442 (2004). As to challenges under section 2241 to present physical

7

confinement, this is not synonymous with any district in which the respondent is amenable to

8

service of process. Id. at 442-44. “[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical

9

confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442-43.

10

Because petitioner is currently being housed in Arizona, the Clerk of the Court shall

11

TRANSFER the entire file to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/21/11
DATED: _______________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Transfer
2
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Medeiros385trans.wpd