Jorge Gonzales v. Kimberly Thornton, Acting Warden, High Desert State Prison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner in the Southern District of California who had not paid the filing fee or applied for in forma pauperis status. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and noted that the petition was likely filed in the wrong district, as jurisdiction properly lies in the Eastern District of California where the petitioner is confined.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or qualify for in forma pauperis status.“Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a filing fee must be paid or IFP status granted before the court can proceed on the merits. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow a pro se litigant to cure this deficiency. |
Dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, noting the petition should be filed in the Eastern District of California.“This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and without prejudice to Petitioner to file the Petition in a Court with proper jurisdiction.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a habeas petition must be filed in the district of confinement or the district of conviction. The petitioner is confined in the Eastern District of California. While the court could have simply dismissed for the fee, it also correctly identified that the Southern District of California likely lacks jurisdiction, making the dismissal without prejudice appropriate to allow refiling in the correct venue. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the threshold requirement of paying the filing fee or obtaining IFP status. It also correctly analyzes the venue requirements for a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and case law, determining that the Southern District of California is not the proper venue because the petitioner is confined in the Eastern District of California. The dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy to allow the petitioner to cure the fee deficiency and file in the correct district.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE GONZALES, Case No.: 25-cv-3814-AJB-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KIMBERLY THORTON, Acting Warden, High Desert State Prison, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently confined at the High Desert State Prison in 19 Susanville, California, is proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary action. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner has 21 neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 23 fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without 24 prejudice. 25 In addition, a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner may be filed in 26 the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 27 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). | || Petitioner is presently confined at the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, 2 || which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the 3 ||Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner indicates that he was 4 || convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (see Doc. No. | at 5) which is within 5 jurisdictional boundaries the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner here challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, and although 7 ||he appears to indicate in the Petition that it took place at the High Desert State Prison (see 8 || Doc. No. 1 at 35) it is not entirely clear. But in any case, there is no indication in the Petition 9 the proceeding took place in the Southern District of California. Thus, habeas 10 jurisdiction clearly exists in the Eastern District of California and the Central District of 11 || California, Western Division, but there is no indication in the Petition that jurisdiction lies 12 the Southern District of California. Rather, it appears jurisdiction over this Petitioner 13 ||most appropriately lies in the Eastern District of California where Petitioner 1s confined 14 where the disciplinary proceedings apparently took place. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 15 || F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence 16 the district where the prisoner is confined.”) 17 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee 18 |}requirement and without prejudice to Petitioner to file the Petition in a Court with proper 19 || jurisdiction. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 16, 2026 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28