Castillo v. Arias
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — As the Ninth Circuit has explained, 2 Section 2254 is properly understood a
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court construed a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the action without prejudice, requiring the petitioner to pay the filing fee or prove inability to do so by March 20, 2024.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Construed the petition as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than § 2241.“Accordingly, the Court will construe the Petition as one filed pursuant to § 2254.” | agree with court The petitioner is a state prisoner challenging a state court judgment (specifically a disciplinary proceeding affecting sentence length). Under established federal habeas law, § 2254 is the exclusive remedy for state prisoners challenging the validity of their custody or the manner in which it was imposed, while § 2241 is reserved for other forms of custody. The court correctly identified the proper statutory vehicle. |
Denied the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without prejudice.“Because it appears from the certified trust account statement that Petitioner can pay requisite filing fee, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2).” | agree with court The petitioner's trust account balance ($17.96) exceeds the required filing fee ($5.00). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and related rules, a prisoner with sufficient funds in their trust account is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The denial is procedurally correct and without prejudice allows the petitioner to pay the fee and continue. |
Dismissed the action without prejudice.“Consequently, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner paying the filing fee or submitting adequate proof of his inability to do so on or before March 20, 2024.” | agree with court Because the IFP motion was denied and the petitioner had not yet paid the filing fee, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the merits. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow a pro se prisoner to cure the deficiency by paying the fee. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between § 2241 and § 2254 for state prisoners. It properly cites Ninth Circuit authority (White v. Lambert) to support the construction of the petition. The denial of IFP status is supported by the factual finding that the petitioner's trust account balance exceeds the filing fee. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard procedural step to allow the petitioner to pay the fee. The reasoning is complete and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN ALBERTO CASTILLO, Case No.: 24-CV-303 JLS (AHG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION 13 v. AS FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 AND DENYING MOTION TO 14 ROBERTO ARIAS, Warden, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 16 17 Petitioner Juan Alberto Castillo, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and 18 serving a sentence arising from a San Diego County Superior Court conviction, has filed a 19 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2). 21 Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding that he contends has lengthened his 22 sentence. See generally Pet. 23 Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state 24 prisoner attacking the validity of a state court judgment. Petitioner may thus not proceed 25 under § 2241. Instead, he can only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006–07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 27 § 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual “in 28 / / / 1 || custody pursuant to a state court judgment”). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, 2 Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect implement[ing] 3 the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 4 state court, and not in state custody for some other reason, such 5 as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.” 6 7 || Jd. at 1006 (alteration in original) (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 8 ||2000)). Accordingly, the Court will construe the Petition as one filed pursuant to § 2254. 9 A request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) made by a state prisoner must 10 ||include a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of 11 |}money or securities Petitioner has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 12 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Plaintiff has submitted the required certificate, 13 || which reflects a balance of $17.96 in his prison trust account. See Mot. at 3-5. The filing 14 || fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 15 Because it appears from the certified trust account statement that Petitioner can pay 16 requisite filing fee, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion to 17 ||Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). Consequently, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 18 || PREJUDICE to Petitioner paying the filing fee or submitting adequate proof of his 19 inability to do so on or before March 20, 2024. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: February 20, 2024 . tt f te 22 on. Janis L. Sammartino 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28