de Medeiros v. Superior Court of the State of California
Filing
12
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the USDC of Arizona. Order Granting Motions 3 ; 6 for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/21/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)
1
2
3
*E-FILED - 4/21/11*
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JULIAN GAGO DE MEDEIROS,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
14
15
SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 10-5385 RMW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER OF
TRANSFER
(Docket Nos. 3, 6.)
16
17
Petitioner is a federal detainee subject to removal proceedings and currently incarcerated
18
at CCA Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention which is premised upon an
20
allegedly invalid 1995 state conviction. Petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma
21
pauperis are GRANTED. For the reasons stated below, the court does not have jurisdiction to
22
adjudicate this matter, and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court of Arizona.
23
Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state prisoner
24
who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for instance a pre-
25
trial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose conviction has been reversed
26
on appeal. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (pre-trial double
27
jeopardy challenge); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing “awaiting
28
extradition” and pretrial detention as examples of when § 2241 applies). In this case, petitioner’s
Order Granting Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Transfer
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Medeiros385trans.wpd
1
habeas petition must be transferred because jurisdiction does not lie in this district. Section 2241
2
allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge” to grant
3
writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The court
4
has interpreted the “within their respective jurisdictions” language of § 2241 to mean nothing
5
more than that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over the custodian. Rumsfeld v.
6
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440-442 (2004). As to challenges under section 2241 to present physical
7
confinement, this is not synonymous with any district in which the respondent is amenable to
8
service of process. Id. at 442-44. “[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical
9
confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442-43.
10
Because petitioner is currently being housed in Arizona, the Clerk of the Court shall
11
TRANSFER the entire file to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/21/11
DATED: _______________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order of Transfer
2
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Medeiros385trans.wpd
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?