Blacher v. State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a restitution money judgment resulting from a murder conviction. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, determining that federal habeas courts lack jurisdiction over challenges to restitution orders and that the Northern District of California would be the appropriate venue for any valid claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice“The Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice to Petitioner, if he wishes so, to proceed with his claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner's challenge was limited to a restitution order. Under 9th Circuit precedent, federal habeas courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court restitution orders. Because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the specific claim raised, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism, allowing the petitioner to refile in the correct district if they wish to pursue other valid claims (such as the underlying conviction). |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly applies the relevant jurisdictional rule from the Ninth Circuit. It accurately identifies the nature of the petitioner's claim (restitution only) and the resulting lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. It also correctly notes the venue implications for any future valid claims. The reasoning is sufficient to support the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON BLACHER, Case No.: 20-cv-1861-GPC (BLM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 RALPH DIAZ, Secretary, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in 18 San Diego, California, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is challenging the restitution money 20 judgment resulting from his 2008 murder conviction in the Contra Costa County California 21 Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1–44.) 22 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 23 of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 24 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th 25 Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). The application in the present matter 26 attacks a judgment of conviction that was entered in the Contra Costa County Superior 27 Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for 28 the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner is presently confined 1 R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, which is within the 2 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 3 ||California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d).. When a habeas petitioner is challenging a judgment of 4 ||conviction, the district court of the district in which the judgment of conviction was entered 5 ||is amore convenient forum because of the accessibility of evidence, records, and witnesses. 6 Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can transfer habeas cases to the 7 || district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum). 8 The Court will not transfer this action there because it appears Petitioner is only 9 || challenging the aspect of his judgment of conviction involving the restitution amount, and 10 || federal habeas courts lack jurisdiction over such challenges. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 11 |/984 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus 12 || petitions challenging only restitution orders). However, if Petitioner wishes to challenge 13 conviction, which took place in the Northern District of California, he should file a new 14 || petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 The Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice to Petitioner, if he wishes so, to 17 proceed with his claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 18 || California. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: September 22, 2020 (2 aptho CS A □ 22 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28