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)

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