Murillo v. Biter

Filing 4

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/18/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 In Re 9 CIXTO CRUIZ MURILLO, No. C-12-1482 EMC (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL Petitioner. ___________________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Petitioner has filed a document entitled "Ruling Re: Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus" that 13 appears to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his conviction from the Tulare County 14 Superior Court. Tulare County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Petitioner 15 is confined at the Kern Valley State Prison in Kern County, also within the venue of the Eastern 16 District of California. Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the 17 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); the Northern District is neither for this petitioner. 18 The court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer" an action that has been 19 filed in the wrong venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Petitioner filed two habeas actions in the Northern 20 District and one habeas action in the Eastern District – all challenging the same Tulare County 21 conviction. This Court transferred his first habeas petition, Murillo v. Coulard, No. C 12-729 EMC, 22 to the Eastern District. It is not in the interest of justice to transfer this action because it wastes 23 limited judicial resources for the transferring court to repeatedly transfer actions filed by the same 24 petitioner in the wrong district, and wastes limited judicial resources for the transferree court to have 25 to process duplicative habeas petitions. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED because it was 26 filed in the wrong venue. This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner pursuing his claims in the 27 Eastern District of California. 28 1 Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED because it is incomplete: he did not 2 attach the certificate of funds in his inmate trust account as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 3 (Docket # 2.) 4 A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 5 which "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 6 of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 7 was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 8 The Clerk shall close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: June 18, 2012 13 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?