Hernandez v. Biter

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

GILBERT ROBLES HERNANDEZ, JR.,
AKA GILBERT ROBLES, JR.,

5

Petitioner,

6
7
8

No. C 12-0064 CW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
M. BITER, Warden,
Respondent.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

It is

unclear from the allegations in the petition whether Petitioner is
challenging the validity of his conviction, the denial of parole,
or matters related to the conditions of his confinement.

The

Northern District, however, is not the proper venue for any of the
above challenges.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state
prisoner in a state that contains two or more federal judicial
districts may be filed in either the district of confinement or the
district of conviction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Federal courts

in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions
challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction.
See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993);
Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).

But if a

habeas petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is
being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credit claims,
the district of confinement is the preferable forum.

See Habeas

L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

1

Petitioner was convicted in Riverside County Superior Court,

2

which lies within the venue of the Central District of California.

3

See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1).

4

Valley State Prison, which is located in Kern County and lies

5

within the venue of the Eastern District of California.

6

U.S.C. § 84(b).

7

either the Central District or the Eastern District, but not in the

8

Northern District.

9

Further, he is incarcerated at Kern

See 28

Thus, jurisdiction over the petition exists in

If Petitioner seeks to challenge his state court conviction,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

jurisdiction is more appropriate in the United States District

11

Court for the Central District of California.

12

challenge a parole eligibility decision, jurisdiction is more

13

appropriate in the United States District Court for the Eastern

14

District of California.

15

If he seeks to

Additionally, if Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions

16

of his confinement at Kern Valley State Prison, he must file a

17

civil rights complaint in the Eastern District.

18

§ 1391(b).

See 28 U.S.C.

19

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED without

20

prejudice to Petitioner's refiling a petition and/or civil rights

21

complaint in the appropriate court.

22
23
24

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the
file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated: 1/11/2012
26

CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2