Opinion
No. C 02-1990 CRB (PR)
April 30, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner, a federal prisoner currently in the custody of the United States Marshal at the Liberty County Jail in Liberty, Texas, is sewing a federal sentence of 262 months imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 18, 1993. The sentence was enhanced in part by a 1984 conviction and one-year sentence from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo.
Last year, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from this court on the ground that the 1984 California conviction was illegal and unconstitutional. He alleged, among other things, that he never entered a plea of guilty in the matter and that he was never sentenced to one year in county jail. Per order filed on September 4, 2001, the petition was dismissed for lack of "custody." The court explained:
The 1984 state conviction petitioner now challenges under § 2254 expired more than 15 years ago. Petitioner is no longer in custody on that conviction or in the custody of the State of California. Cf. Allen v. Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1998). The 1984 state conviction is no longer open to collateral attack in its own right under § 2254.Watts v. Chandler, No. C 01-3238 CRB (PR), slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2001) (order of dismissal).
The court advised petitioner that he could nonetheless satisfy the "in custody" requirement because his petition could be construed as a collateral attack on his current federal sentence, as "enhanced" by the allegedly invalid 1984 state conviction. Id. (citing Lackawana County Dist. Att'y v. Coss, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 1573 (2001); Allen, 153 F.3d at 1049-50). "This requires a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division)." Id. Because both avenues apparently proved unsuccessful, petition has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this court.
In his new petition under § 2241, petitioner argues that his federal sentence is unconstitutional because prison officials at the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California denied him access to the courts back in 1995. According to petitioner, the federal officials' actions prevented him from successfully challenging the validity of the 1984 state conviction used to illegally enhance his current federal sentence.
Petitioner's new petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over any habeas corpus petition alleging a violation of federal law under federal question jurisdiction. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1989). The only jurisdictional limitation is whether a district court has personal jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian so that it may have the power to enforce its orders. Id. (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973)). The petitioner's custodian must be within the court's territorial limits. See Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Subias v. Meese, 835 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987) ("custodian must be amenable to service of process and the powers of the court"). Where, as here, the petitioner is incarcerated in one state and files a § 2241 petition in a federal district court in another state, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the petitioner and his custodian to effect process or enforce its orders and accordingly must dismiss the petition without prejudice. See, e.g., Hassain v. Johnson, 790 F.2d 1420, 1420 (9th Cir. 1986) (no jurisdiction in California to address petition where inmate incarcerated in Arizona); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 771 (9th Cir. 1984) (no jurisdiction in Washington to address petition where inmate incarcerated in Kansas).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, where petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(2) (County of Liberty lies within venue of Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division).
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.