Blacher v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON BLACHER, Case No.: 20-cv-1861-GPC (BLM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 RALPH DIAZ, Secretary, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in 18 San Diego, California, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is challenging the restitution money 20 judgment resulting from his 2008 murder conviction in the Contra Costa County California 21 Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1–44.) 22 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 23 of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 24 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th 25 Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). The application in the present matter 26 attacks a judgment of conviction that was entered in the Contra Costa County Superior 27 Court, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for 28 the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner is presently confined 1 R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, which is within the 2 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 3 ||California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d).. When a habeas petitioner is challenging a judgment of 4 ||conviction, the district court of the district in which the judgment of conviction was entered 5 ||is amore convenient forum because of the accessibility of evidence, records, and witnesses. 6 Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can transfer habeas cases to the 7 || district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum). 8 The Court will not transfer this action there because it appears Petitioner is only 9 || challenging the aspect of his judgment of conviction involving the restitution amount, and 10 || federal habeas courts lack jurisdiction over such challenges. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 11 |/984 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus 12 || petitions challenging only restitution orders). However, if Petitioner wishes to challenge 13 conviction, which took place in the Northern District of California, he should file a new 14 || petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 The Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice to Petitioner, if he wishes so, to 17 proceed with his claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 18 || California. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: September 22, 2020 (2 aptho CS A □ 22 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28