Brown v. The Court of Appeals - Third District

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/02/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

NORMAN BROWN,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. C-11-3464 TEH (PR)

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THE COURT OF APPEALS - THIRD
DISTRICT,
Respondent.

16

/

17
18

Pro se Petitioner Norman Anthony Brown has filed a

19

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

20

Doc. #1.

21

thereto reveals that Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of

22

California presently serving his sentence in a federal correctional

23

center in Mississippi for numerous crimes he committed in Riverside

24

County.

25

Appeal - Third District” as the Respondent.

26

readily apparent why Petitioner is serving his sentence in a federal

27

correctional institution.

28

Careful review of the Petition and the documents attached

See Doc. #1 at 20; Doc. #7.

Petitioner names “The Court of
See Doc. #1.

It is not

Also unclear is precisely what relief

1

Petitioner seeks or why he filed his Petition in this Court.

2

From review of the documents Petitioner filed, it appears

3

that his original prison sentence imposed by the Riverside County

4

Superior Court on August 10, 1982 was for a term of 70 years in

5

state prison.

6

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

7

received an amended abstract of judgment that reduced Petitioner’s

8

sentence from 70 years to 69 years.

9

was then recalculated; he apparently is scheduled to be released on

10

See Doc. #1 at 20.

December 30, 2019.

11

On November 23, 1982, the

Id.

Petitioner’s release date

Id. at 20–21.

On June 13, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ

12

of mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court in the California

13

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, ostensibly seeking to

14

compel CDCR to release to him all documents related to the

15

calculation of his prison sentence, including the amended abstract

16

of judgment.

17

asking this Court for the same – or similar – relief by filing the

18

instant Petition.

19

this Court is unable to entertain the Petition, which will be

20

DISMISSED.

See Doc. #1 at 4 & 27.

See Doc. #1.

It appears that Petitioner is

But for the reasons that follow,

21
22
23

I
Federal district courts are without power to issue

24

mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other

25

state officials in the performance of their duties.

26

a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or

27
28

2

A petition for

1

refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law.

2

v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Accordingly, this petition is frivolous as a matter of law and must

4

be DISMISSED.

See Demos

5

Further, assuming Petitioner is challenging the manner in

6

which his sentence is being executed, he would not be able to do so

7

here.

8

confinement or the district of conviction.

9

Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear

Venue in a habeas action is proper in either the district of
See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

10

petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of

11

conviction.

12

Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).

13

However, if the petition is directed to the manner in which a

14

sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time

15

credit claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum.

16

See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249

17

(9th Cir. 1989).

18

See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D.

Here, Petitioner does not challenge his conviction.

19

Instead, he appears to be seeking documents he believes are

20

necessary to properly calculate the duration of his sentence.

21

the extent such a claim challenges the manner in which his sentence

22

is being executed, it should be heard in his district of

23

confinement, namely the Northern District of Mississippi.

24

the Court declines to transfer this case to the Northern District of

25

Mississippi since it is frivolous as a matter of law.

26

925 F.2d at 1161–62.

27
28

3

To

However,

See Demos,

1

II.

2

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED with

3

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

4

granted.

5

poverty, Petitioner’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. ##

6

2 & 4, are GRANTED.

7

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Based solely on his affidavit of

The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as

8

moot, enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

9

file.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

DATED

2/02/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

15
16
17

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.11\Brown-11-3464-habeas-dismiss.wpd

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4