Sanchez v. Pfeiffer

Filing 3

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and Construing Petition as One Filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket accordingly. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 12/9/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOSEPH EUGENE SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,

13

vs.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,

16

16cv2975-AJB (BLM)

ORDER:
(1) GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; and

14
15

Civil No.

Respondent.1

17

(2) CONSTRUING PETITION AS
ONE FILED PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 2254

18

On December 5, 2016, Joseph Eugene Sanchez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

19

proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma

21

pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

22
23

Petitioner has no funds on account at the facility in which he is presently confined,

24

and therefore cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s

25

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-

26

referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being

27
1

28

Petitioner, who is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison, named as Respondent “Jamie,
Warden.” (Pet. at 1.) However, Christian Pfeiffer is the Warden of that institution. The Clerk of Court
is directed to modify the docket to reflect that “Christian Pfeiffer” is the Respondent to this action.
I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\16cv2975-Grant&Construe.wpd, 12916

-1-

16cv2975

1

required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas

2

Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

3

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION

4

AS ONE FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

5

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state

6

prisoner attacking a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in the loss of custody credits.

7

(Pet. at 1.) Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under section 2241, but may only

8

proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. Lambert,

9

370 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that section 2254 “is the exclusive

10

vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court

11

judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court

12

conviction.”), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553

13

(9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859

14

(2011). Accordingly, the Court will CONSTRUE the Petition as one filed pursuant to

15

28 U.S.C. § 2254, and not one file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Clerk of Court is

16

directed to modify the docket accordingly.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: December 9, 2016

20

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\16cv2975-Grant&Construe.wpd, 12916

-2-

16cv2975