Perez-Perez v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas petition filed by a federal prisoner seeking credit for time served in state custody. The court denied the petition without prejudice, finding that the proper venue for the claim was the Central District of California where the petitioner was currently housed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice“Therefore, for the same reasons the Court denied the request two years ago in Case No. 16-cr-1008-BAS-1, the Court DENIES the habeas petition without prejudice and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'custodial court' rule for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. The order establishes that the petitioner is housed in Adelanto, California, which is within the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Ninth Circuit precedent, such petitions must be filed in the district of confinement. Because the Southern District of California lacks jurisdiction over the custodial officer, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural remedy to allow the petitioner to file in the correct district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the claim as a challenge to the execution of the sentence rather than the validity of the conviction. It correctly applies the venue requirement for § 2241 petitions, noting that the petitioner's current location (Adelanto, CA) places him in the Central District of California, not the Southern District. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate because the defect is one of venue/jurisdiction, not the merits of the claim.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EFRAIN PEREZ-PEREZ, Case No. 23-cv-2071-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 15 Defendant. CASE 16 17 In 2021, in his criminal case, Mr. Perez-Perez wrote a series of letters to the Court 18 requesting reconsideration of his sentence. (No. 16-cr-1008-BAS-1, ECF Nos. 164, 166, 19 168.) Specifically, Mr. Perez-Perez asked the Court to order that he be given credit toward 20 his federal sentence for time served in state custody. (Id.) The Court denied the request. 21 (Id., ECF No. 174.) To the extent Mr. Perez-Perez was requesting modification of his 22 sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the time for such filing had expired. 23 Since Defendant was requesting that he be given credit for the time spent in state 24 custody, the Court found this could be construed as a challenge to the manner in which the 25 Bureau of Prisons is carrying out Defendant’s sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Such 26 challenges to the manner of a sentence’s execution must be brought in the custodial court. 27 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2000). At the time, Mr. Perez- 28 Perez was being housed at FCI Lompoc, so the Court denied the request without prejudice 1 directed Mr. Perez-Perez to file any such request in the Central District of California. 2 ||(No. 16-cr-1008-BAS-1, ECF No. 174.) 3 Now, two years later, Mr. Perez-Perez files an identical request back here in the 4 || Southern District of California, couched as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 5 || Although it appears Mr. Perez-Perez has been moved to a different institution, the new 6 || institution in Adelanto, California, is still in the Central District of California. 7 Therefore, for the same reasons the Court denied the request two years ago in Case 8 ||No. 16-cr-1008-BAS-1, the Court DENIES the habeas petition without prejudice and 9 || directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 , 12 || DATED: November 16, 2023 (pil A (Lyphaa. 6 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9.