Leopoldo Garnica-Anita v. Linda Sanders
Filing
8
ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed, without prejudice, as duplicative, transferred in error, and already fully disposed of in prior orders of the court. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 4/10/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Leopoldo Garnica-Anita by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEOPOLDO GARNICA-ANITA,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO.
12-3033-RDR
LINDA SANDERS,
Warden,
Respondent.
O R D E R
This action was initiated as a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California by an inmate of the
Federal
Correctional
Institution,
Lompoc,
California.
The
California District Court reviewed the petition and determined that
“the pending action falls under Section 2255 and not Section 2241.”
That court further found that Mr. Garnica-Anita was convicted in
the District of Kansas in case No. 2:06-CR-20160-003-JWL, that
“petitioner is challenging the legality of his conviction,” and
that his “claims are presumptively cognizable only in a Section
2255 motion and must be filed in the court of conviction.”
Based
on these findings, the California District Court ordered that this
action be transferred to this District.
Upon receipt of this
transferred case, the clerk filed it as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, apparently based upon
the caption of the pro se petition.
However, this court found that
this action should be filed as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, as it was interpreted to be by the transferor court.
Had it
been interpreted as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the District
of Kansas is not the proper venue and transfer would not have been
appropriate.
Our clerk was directed to file this petition as a §
2255 motion in petitioner’s criminal case and reassign it to the
judge in that case.
That was done, and the matter was disposed of
as a § 2255 motion by the judge in the criminal case on February
28, 2012.1
After Judge Otero in the California District Court ordered
this action transferred to this district and after it was actually
transferred, received, and opened as a case in this district on
November 28, 2011, Mr. Garnica-Anita filed a Motion to Vacate
Judgment in the transferor court, which Judge Otero found appeared
“to
seek
reconsideration
of
the
Court’s
conclusion
that
the
Petition must be considered pursuant to Section 2255.” Judge Otero
found no grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and denied
the motion on December 14, 2011.
Then, for reasons that are not
apparent, the entire action was transferred a second time to this
district by the Central District of California.
This matter was
not filed here by petitioner and appears to have been erroneously
transferred here by the Central District of California.
The court
might transfer the matter back to the transferor court, as it can
find no order on the transferred docket for this second transfer.
Alternatively, the court can dismiss this action as duplicative and
1
The docket sheet in petitioner’s criminal case indicates that this
matter was docketed therein as Doc. 214, and that it was treated as premature and
dismissed because the criminal case is currently on appeal (Doc. 222).
2
already entirely disposed of in the prior orders of this court in
Garnica-Anita v. Sanders, Case No. 11-cv-3205-RDR (Dec. 9, 2011)
and U.S.A. v. Anita, et al., Case No. 06-cr-20160-JWL-3 (Feb. 28,
2012), Case No. 11-cv-02671.
The court finds that the latter
disposition best serves the interests of judicial economy.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed,
without
prejudice,
as
duplicative,
transferred
in
error,
and
already fully disposed of in prior orders of the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 10th day of April, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge
3
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?