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)
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?