1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No. 22-cv-0832-BAS-AGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 3, 2022, Steven Wayne Bonilla (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding 18 pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet., ECF 19 No. 1.) On July 13, 2022, this Court dismissed without prejudice the Petition for 20 Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement. (First Dismissal Order, ECF No. 21 2.) Furthermore, the Court found the Petition also was subject to dismissal because it was 22 deficient on its face. Among other things, the Petition failed to name a proper Respondent 23 and to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies as required to proceed under § 2254. 24 (Id.) Finally, the Court expressed its skepticism that this District is the appropriate venue 25 for Petitioner’s action. (Id.) 26 The Court directed Petitioner that if he wished to proceed with the instant case, he 27 must: (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement by either (a) paying the $5.00 filing fee or (b) 28 providing adequate proof of his inability to pay the filing fee; and (2) file [an] Amended 1 Petition curing the deficiencies identified in the First Dismissal Order. The Court 2 instructed Petitioner that to the extent he had brought this action to “challeng[e] a judgment 3 entered in Alameda County, rather than amend the instant Petition, Petitioner must file 4 either in the Northern District of California, in which Alameda County is located, or the 5 Eastern District of California, the location of the facility in which he presently is confined. 6 See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).” (First Dismissal Order at 5.) 7 On August 11, 2022, Petitioner timely filed his Amended Petition. (Am. Pet., ECF 8 No. 3.)1 The Amended Petition fails for all the same reasons delineated in this Court’s 9 First Dismissal Order. Petitioner remains noncompliant with the filing fee requirement and 10 has failed to add a single amendment addressing the deficiencies previously identified by 11 the Court despite being given opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the Amended Petition 12 appears to confirm that this District is not the appropriate venue for Petitioner’s habeas 13 corpus action. For those reasons, the Amended Petition warrants dismissal without 14 prejudice and without leave to amend. 15 I. FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 16 Petitioner has again failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, as Petitioner has 17 neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rules 18 Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § foll. 2254. On this basis alone, the 19 Amended Petition warrants dismissal without prejudice. 20 II. FAILURE TO CURE DEFICIENCIES OUTLINE IN PRIOR ORDER 21 The Amended Petition does not cure any of the pleading deficiencies identified in 22 the First Dismissal Order. First, the Amended Petition names as Respondent the “Court’s 23 24 1 Notably, Petitioner has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 2(c) or Civil Local Rule HC.2(b), 25 which governs habeas corpus proceedings in this District, because his Amended Petition is not set forth in the court-approved, blank § 2254 amended habeas petition that the Court had sent Petitioner in 26 accordance with the First Dismissal Order. Instead, he filed two hand-written memoranda-style documents, captioned “Reporting a Felony Crime Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 04” and “Motion to File an 27 Appeal from an Adverse Judgment,” respectively. Because these documents contain the alleged factual basis of Petitioner’s entitlement to relief under § 2254, the Court construes them collectively as the 28 1 Clerk’s Office.” Hence, for the second time, Petitioner fails to name a proper Respondent. 2 See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) 3 (instructing that the proper respondent for habeas corpus actions brought by state prisoners 4 in California is the warden of the state correctional facility in which the petitioner is 5 presently confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections and 6 Rehabilitation). Thus, the Court still lacks personal jurisdiction over this action. See 7 Ashley v. Washington, 8394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). 8 Second, Petitioner again fails to allege that each of the claims raised in the Amended 9 Petition were presented to the California Supreme Court and, thus, that he exhausted state 10 court remedies as required under § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 11 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). These two deficiencies are independent grounds warranting 12 dismissal of the Amended Petition. 13 III. VENUE 14 Finally, as discussed in First Dismissal Order, it does not appear venue lies in this 15 Southern District of California. Rather, it appears Petitioner must bring this habeas corpus 16 action either in the Northern or Eastern Districts of California, which is where Petitioner 17 was convicted and where he is incarcerated, respectively. (See First Dismissal Order at 4– 18 5.) In the Amended Petition, Petitioner again appears to reference and attack an Alameda 19 County Superior Court judgment. (See e.g., Am. Pet. at 10.) While Petitioner generally 20 contends “[a] void judgment may be collaterally attacked ANYWHERE AND AT ANY 21 TIME” (see id. at 6 (emphasis in original)), clear authority provides that a federal petition 22 for writ of habeas corpus challenging a state court conviction may be filed only in the 23 United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently 24 confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced, see 28 U.S.C. § 25 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Because 26 Petitioner does not indicate he is challenging a conviction within the jurisdictional 27 boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, nor 28 1 Petitioner incarcerated within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Southern District, it 2 || does not appear this is the appropriate venue for the instant action. See 28 U.S.C.§ 2241(d). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Amended Petition is DISMISSED without 5 prejudice. Because Petitioner failed to address any of the deficiencies in First Dismissal 6 Order, and because venue appears to lie in either the Eastern or Northern Districts of 7 || California, the dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 8 If Petitioner wishes to initiate a federal habeas corpus action, he must do so by filing 9 ||a new case on the proper form and accompanied by the filing fee or a request to proceed in 10 || forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to send Petitioner a blank Southern 11 || District of California § 2254 habeas petition form and an in forma pauperis application, 12 |;along with a copy of this Order. However, this Court again notes that to the extent 13 || Petitioner is attempting to proceed with a habeas action challenging a judgment entered in 14 || Alameda County, California, he should not initiate a case in this Southern District of 15 || California. He must file either in the Northern District of California, in which Alameda 16 || County is located, or the Eastern District of California, the location of the facility in which 17 || Petitioner is presently confined. 18 The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 /\ yy 21 || DATED: September 29, 2022 Cyl A (Haphan 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 _A.