Neuhart v. Eaton
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ denied — the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure 18 to satisfy the filing fee requirement.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without a filing fee or in forma pauperis motion. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and noted that the petitioner likely lacked jurisdiction in the Southern District of California and should instead file under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central or Eastern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement.“Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Local Rule 3(a), a petitioner must pay the filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order recites that the petitioner did neither. Dismissing without prejudice allows the petitioner to cure the defect by paying the fee or filing an IFP motion, which is the standard remedy for this procedural failure. |
Determination that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the petitioner is a state prisoner challenging a state conviction, and that the proper vehicle is 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in a different district.“The Court declines to construe the Petition as one filed under section 2254 because it appears the Court lacks jurisdiction, regardless of whether the Petition was filed under section 2254 or section 2241.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoners challenging the validity of their convictions. The court also correctly applies the venue rules for § 2254 petitions (28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)), noting that the petitioner is confined in the Eastern District of California and convicted in the Central District of California, neither of which is the Southern District of California. Therefore, the S.D. Cal. lacks subject matter jurisdiction/venue for a § 2254 petition, and § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for challenging the conviction itself. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory requirements for filing fees and the jurisdictional/venue rules for federal habeas corpus petitions. It accurately distinguishes between § 2241 and § 2254 and correctly identifies the proper districts for the petitioner's action based on his location of confinement and conviction. The reasoning is complete and supported by binding authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD MICHAEL NEUHART, Case No.: 3:21-cv-0419-GPC-WVG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 P. EATON, Warden, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner and proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has 19 not moved to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 21 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must either be accompanied by a $5.00 filing 22 fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Local Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 23 § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action he must submit a copy of this 24 Order with the requisite $5.00 fee or adequate proof he cannot pay the fee. 25 BASIS FOR PETITION AND VENUE 26 Further, the Court notes that, while Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 2241, it appears he is a state prisoner attacking the validity of a state court 28 conviction and sentence imposed by the state of California. State prisoners challenging 1 their convictions on federal habeas typically may not proceed under section 2241, but 2 rather, must proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White 3 v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that section 2254 is the 4 proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual “in custody 5 pursuant to a state court judgment”). Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect 6 implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long as 7 the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 8 for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 9 other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.” [citations omitted.] Id. at 10 1006 (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in 11 original). The Court declines to construe the Petition as one filed under section 2254 12 because it appears the Court lacks jurisdiction, regardless of whether the Petition was 13 filed under section 2254 or section 2241.1 Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks to 14 challenge his California state court conviction, it appears the appropriate cause of action 15 is one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in either the Central or Eastern District. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure 18 to satisfy the filing fee requirement. If Petitioner wishes to pursue this action under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241 despite being subject to possible dismissal, he must either pay the $5.00 20 filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay no later than June 1, 2021. To 21 22 23 1 The Court notes, however, that a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under section 2254 must be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently 24 confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 25 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Sierra Conservation Center, located in Tuolumne County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries 26 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Further, Petitioner appears to be challenging a conviction from Orange County Superior Court, which is also 27 located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(3). Accordingly, habeas corpus jurisdiction appears 28 1 || the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge his state court conviction from Orange County 2 || Superior Court, he may do so by filing a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the 3 || appropriate district, as discussed above. For Petitioner’s convenience the Clerk of Court 4 || shall attach to this Order a blank §2254 petition form and a blank in forma pauperis 5 || application form. 6 Dated: April 1, 2021 72 7 Hon. athe Cae 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28