Lena v. People of the State of California, the et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01349

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Without Prejudice. The {{6}} Motion to Direct Prison Officials to Process His Financial Records is DENIED as unnecessary and the {{7}} Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. No Certificate of Appealability is warranted in this case. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White, on 06/01/15. Modified on 6/2/2015

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL LENA,) No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR) 10) Petitioner,) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11) v.) 12) PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF) 13 CALIFORNIA,) (Dkt. 6, 7)) 14 Respondent.) _________________________________ 15 16 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas 17 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks records from cases filed in the state 18 courts, as well as in a prior civil rights action filed in federal court. 19 Petitioner's claims are not the proper subject of a habeas action because they do 20 not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 21 1289, 1293 (2011). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is limited to review of the execution of 22 a federal sentence, see United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) 23 (presentence time credit claim), or to a state prisoner who is not held pursuant to the 24 judgment of a State court. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 25 2007) (pretrial detainee); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en 26 banc) (listing "awaiting extradition" and pretrial detention as examples of when § 2241 27 applies). Petitioner is incarcerated pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and 28 therefore if he wishes to challenge his the fact or duration of his confinement in a federal 1 habeas petition, he must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner's motion to proceed 3 in forma pauperis (dkt. 7) is GRANTED, and the motion to direct prison officials to 4 process his financial records (dkt. 6) is DENIED as unnecessary. 5 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to 6 rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order 7 in which the petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of 8 his claim on procedural grounds debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 9 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. 10 The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: June 1, 2015 13 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28