Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIONEL TATE, SR., Case No.: 24-CV-756 JLS (LR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Lionel Tate, Sr. is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State 18 Prison. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging both a 1993 Santa Clara County Superior Court 20 conviction and sentence as well as the conditions of his confinement during his 21 incarceration at California State Prison, Solano. See ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 1, 7–15.1 22 Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. See ECF No. 2. Having carefully considered the 23 Petition and the applicable law, the Court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT 24 PREJUDICE. 25 / / / 26 27 1 All page citations to the Petition refer to the blue page numbers affixed to the top right corner of each 28 1 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 2 As a preliminary matter, Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. On 3 federal habeas, a state prisoner must name as respondent the state officer with custody. 4 Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rules Governing § 2254 5 Cases, Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a 6 habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. 7 The warden of a petitioner’s correctional institution is the typical respondent. 8 However, “the rules following section 2254 do not specify the warden.” Id. Instead, “the 9 ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the warden of the institution in which the 10 petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. 11 (quoting Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory 12 committee’s note). 13 So, for the Court to entertain the Petition, Petitioner must name either the warden in 14 charge of the state correctional facility in which he is presently confined or the current 15 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. 16 United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Petitioner has named neither 17 party. Consequently, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. See Pet. at 1. 18 HABEAS JURISDICTION 19 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 20 of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 21 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th 22 Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner’s state court conviction occurred in the 23 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, which is within the jurisdictional 24 boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 25 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner is presently confined at Imperial County’s Calipatria State 26 Prison, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for 27 the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Thus, habeas jurisdiction exists 28 in both the Southern and Northern Districts. 1 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a judgment of conviction, the district court 2 of the district in which the judgment of conviction was entered is a more convenient forum 3 because of the accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 4 497, 499 n.15 (recognizing that the district where the conviction occurred is often the more 5 convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Thus, it is 6 generally the practice of the district courts in California to transfer habeas actions 7 questioning judgments of conviction to the district in which the judgment was entered. 8 Here, that would be the Northern District of California. 9 For the reasons that follow, however, the Court elects dismissal without prejudice in 10 lieu of transfer. 11 CLAIM CHALLENGING CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT 12 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper 13 vehicle for at least one of the claims Petitioner presents. In ground four of the Petition, 14 Petitioner asserts that “CDCR, CSP-Sol, destroyed my legal materials denying me access 15 to the courts.” Pet. at 10. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that on May 8, 2023, correctional 16 personnel “destroyed [his] legal materials and then lied claiming no involvement,” which 17 prevented him from presenting evidence supporting his claims in other pending cases 18 against the same institution. Id. 19 “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 20 imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 21 release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 22 habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Meanwhile, “a § 1983 23 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to 24 the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Id. at 499. 25 Upon review, ground four of the Petition is not cognizable through habeas because 26 success on that ground “would not necessarily lead to [Petitioner’s] immediate or earlier 27 release from confinement.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 28 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions 1 of his confinement, he must do so, if at all, in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 2 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 927 (“[A] § 1983 action is the exclusive vehicle for claims 3 brought by state prisoners that are not within the core of habeas corpus.”). 4 Moreover, while Petitioner is currently confined at Calipatria, Petitioner alleges that 5 the events at issue took place during his incarceration at California State Prison, Solano, 6 see Pet. at 10, 15, 19-31, which is in Solano County and therefore within the jurisdictional 7 boundaries of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). So, the proper 8 venue for any claims concerning his conditions of confinement while at Solano is the 9 Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 10 The instant Petition presents claims challenging Petitioner’s conviction and sentence 11 (both imposed in Santa Clara County) and claims challenging the conditions of his 12 confinement in Solano County. Because these two groups of claims are best resolved in 13 two different districts—neither of which is the Southern District—the Court declines to 14 transfer the instant case and instead finds dismissal without prejudice appropriate. See 28 15 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in 16 the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer 17 such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”). 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT 20 PREJUDICE to Petitioner seeking habeas relief in the Northern District of California with 21 respect to his Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction.2 To the extent Petitioner 22 wishes to pursue claims concerning the conditions of his confinement during his time of 23 24 25 2 Petitioner also indicates that (1) this is not his first federal petition challenging this same conviction, (2) he filed a prior action in the Northern District of California which was denied on the merits, and (3) the 26 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not given him permission to file a second or successive petition. See Pet. at 6. Because the Northern District is the more convenient and appropriate forum for any challenge 27 to Petitioner’s Santa Clara County conviction, Petitioner indicates “unknown” with respect to the prior case number/date of decision, see id., and this action is independently subject to dismissal, the Court finds 28 1 |/incarceration at California State Prison, Solano, this dismissal is similarly without 2 || prejudice to Petitioner filing a new civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 3 || the Eastern District of California. 4 ISSO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: May 6, 2024 . tt f te 6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28