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)

Download PDF
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

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?