Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02033/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02033-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv2033

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMITRI VALERYEVICH

TATARINOV,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN

DIEGO; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

COUNSEL, DEPT. OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; U.S. ATTORNEY,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT; ICE

DETENTION & REMOVAL UNIT,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2033-L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE RESPONDENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

On December 7, 2007, Respondent Superior Court of the State of California, County of

San Diego (“State”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

For the reasons which follow, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This is the State’s renewed motion to dismiss. The State’s initial motion to dismiss was

denied as moot on December 4, 2007 because a new petition had been filed. In the December 4

order the court also admonished the State that any future motions must comply with all

applicable Local Rules or Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures. As

before, the State’s renewed motion fails to comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7.1

Case 3:07-cv-02033-L-NLS Document 40 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv2033

and with the court’s directions pertaining to the lodged exhibits. Counsel is again advised that

any further failure to comply may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1. 

The court also notes that the State labors under the assumption that the petition was filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This assumption is incorrect, as the petition, since the inception

of the case, has clearly been captioned as a petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Accordingly, in any future filings, including its response to the petition, the State is instructed to

direct its arguments toward the issue whether the petition meets the requirements for relief

pursuant to section 2241. 

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02033-L-NLS Document 40 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 2