William Booher v. The People of the State of California

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Manuel L. Real. IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (es)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) ) CALIFORNIA, ) ) ) Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) WILLIAM BOOHER, Case No. CV 17-02206-R (JDE) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 19 20 I. 21 INTRODUCTION 22 On March 21, 2017, Petitioner William Booher (“Petitioner”)1 23 commenced this action by filing a document entitled, “Motion Requesting 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner captions the pleading “The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. William Booher, Defendant.” (Pet. at 1). Because Petitioner asks the Court to treat the filing as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the caption is hereby amended to reflect the titles and status of the parties consistent with such a Petition. 1 1 Final Disposition of Charge(s),” in which Petitioner requests the Court “[t]o 2 consider this as a Writ of Habeas Corpus requesting that I be brought before 3 this Court within the next 180 days.” (Dkt. 1, “Petition” or “Pet.” at 2). For 4 the reasons set forth below, the Petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter 5 jurisdiction. 6 II. 7 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 8 9 The substance of the Petition, which is unsigned, recites, in full (spelling, capitalization and punctuation in original): 10 Comes now the defendant William Booher Pro Se asking this 11 Honorable Court to grant this motion in order that he may move 12 forward through the Justice system without the restrictions that are 13 placed on someone that has an out of state Detainer, even though 14 this particular Detainer may not be considered an extraditable 15 issue, the Colorado Dept of Corrections stills sees it as a type of 16 Detainer. therefore prohibiting me from moving forward through 17 the rehabilitation process. The defendant would as this Honorable 18 Court to consider one of the following: 19 1. 20 To Run the time that I have remaining there, with the Colorado time that I am currently doing; 21 2. To dismiss the current charge as time served 22 3. To consider this as a Writ of Habeas Corpus 23 requesting that I be brought before this court within 24 the next 180 days. 25 26 (Pet. at 1-2). Petitioner lists his address as the FCF P.O. Box 999 Canon City, 27 Colorado, which would appear to be Fremont Correctional Facility, a 28 Colorado state prison facility. The Petition title references “The People of the 2 1 State of California” and on the form where “Case No.” is typed, the Petition 2 states “LAA 783022.” From this information, the Court interprets Petitioner’s 3 alternative requests to either “run the time [Petitioner has] remaining there” or 4 “to dismiss the current charge as time served” as referring to some charges 5 pending with a state court in California. The Court has reviewed the 6 CM/ECF electronic records index and has found no record of a criminal case 7 involving Petitioner, pending or closed, having been brought in this District, 8 nor does Petitioner include a case number or the name of any case pending or 9 closed in this District. 10 III. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE 13 PETITION BECAUSE PETITIONER SEEKS A REMEDY NOT 14 AVAILABLE UNDER HABEAS CORPUS 15 “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in state custody 16 upon the legality of that custody, and the traditional function of the writ is to 17 secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 18 (1973); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Lujan 19 v. Garcia, 734 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court lacked jurisdiction to 20 reduce first-degree murder conviction to second-degree murder conviction). 21 A habeas court has power to release a prisoner (upon a requisite 22 showing), “but has no other power,” and cannot revise a state court judgment 23 or order a state court to resentence a petitioner. Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 24 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010). Although a district court in a habeas proceeding 25 “may issue a conditional writ that requires the state to release a petitioner 26 unless it takes some other remedial actions, such as retrial of the petitioner” 27 (Lujan, 734 F.3d at 934), such a conditional writ is only possible if, ipso facto, 28 the petitioner is in the custody of the state or municipality to whom the writ is 3 1 directed. Here, Petitioner does not seek release, or any relief, from his current 2 3 custody by the State of Colorado, even if the venue rules of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 4 or 28 U.S.C. § 2244 permitted such action. Rather, he appears to be seeking an 5 order relating to the calculation of his sentence in different jurisdiction, a 6 California state court. But he is not in custody in California resulting from a 7 California conviction. He is in custody in Colorado from a Colorado 8 conviction. Thus, no habeas relief direct to “the People of the State of 9 California,” or any other formation involving a California person or 10 institution, is possible or lawful.2 Simply, habeas relief is not available here. 11 12 B. SUMMARY DISMISSAL IS WARRANTED 13 Local Rule 72-3.2 provides: 14 15 The Magistrate Judge promptly shall examine a 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus, and if it plainly 17 appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 18 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, 19 the Magistrate Judge may prepare a proposed order 20 for summary dismissal and submit it and a proposed 21 judgment to the District Judge 22 Here, it plainly appears from the face of the Petition that the Petitioner is not 23 entitled to the relief he seeks, rending the Petition subject to summary 24 dismissal. 25 /// 26 27 28 To the extent Petitioner is attempting to initiate notice under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Petitioner is directed to 18 U.S.C. App. § 2. 2 4 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the 3 United States District Courts and Local Rule 72-3.2-3(a), IT IS ORDERED 4 that judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition without prejudice 5 for lack of jurisdiction. 6 7 Dated: April 5, 2017 8 ______________________________ MANUEL L. REAL United States District Judge 9 10 11 Presented by: 12 13 14 __________________________ John D. Early United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?