Castillo v. Arias ( 2024 )

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