From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lena v. California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)

Opinion

No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR)

06-01-2015

MICHAEL LENA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Dkt. 6, 7)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks records from cases filed in the state courts, as well as in a prior civil rights action filed in federal court.

Petitioner's claims are not the proper subject of a habeas action because they do not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is limited to review of the execution of a federal sentence, see United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (presentence time credit claim), or to a state prisoner who is not held pursuant to the judgment of a State court. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (pretrial detainee); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (listing "awaiting extradition" and pretrial detention as examples of when § 2241 applies). Petitioner is incarcerated pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and therefore if he wishes to challenge his the fact or duration of his confinement in a federal habeas petition, he must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 7) is GRANTED, and the motion to direct prison officials to process his financial records (dkt. 6) is DENIED as unnecessary.

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in which the petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of his claim on procedural grounds debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 1, 2015

/s/_________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Lena v. California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Lena v. California

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL LENA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2015

Citations

No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)