Rodgers v. Ferrara

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/27/2015 DISMISSING the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, without prejudice to filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the case. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OTIS LEE RODGERS,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1298-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

THOMAS A. FERRARA,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a county prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 His six claims for relief relate to an order of extradition originating from an

19

Ohio state court. See ECF No. 1 at 9-15.

20

Challenges to the validity of one’s confinement or the duration of one’s confinement are

21

properly brought in a habeas action. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing

22

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court

23

shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant

24

to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

25

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of

26
27
28

1

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636;
see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

1

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. It is well established that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides the

2

proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner who is not in custody

3

“pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but rather “in pre-trial detention or

4

awaiting extradition.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other

5

grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

6

Here, petitioner was in custody “awaiting extradition” at the time he filed the instant

7

petition, which challenges the order of extradition itself. Although petitioner filed this action

8

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he is not attacking the validity of a state court conviction and

9

sentence imposed by the State of California. Therefore, it is § 2241 that provides the proper

10

jurisdictional basis for his habeas petition.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

12

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed without prejudice to filing a petition for a writ of habeas

13

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close

14

the case.

15

DATED: October 27, 2015.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2