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)

Download PDF
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?