Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01308/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

 Petitioner previously filed another pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, CV07-1003-PHX-SMM (DKD); this case was dismissed and a Judgment of dismissal entered

on July 9, 2007 (Doc. #11 in CV-07-1003-PHX-SMM (DKD)) because Petitioner was not

convicted in Arizona. 

WO SK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leon Dews, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1308-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner Leon Dews, who is confined in Wasco State Prison in Wasco, California,

filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition").1

 The Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice.

I. Petition

Petitioner was extradited from Arizona and convicted in California on charges of

parole violation, absconding, and robbery. Petitioner challenges his California conviction

based on the extradition, raising three grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges

that the extradition document was invalid. In Ground Two, he alleges that there was no

Case 2:07-cv-01308-SMM--DKD Document 3 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

probable cause to extradite him. In Ground Three, he alleges that the process used to

extradite him violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. Dismissal

A district court must summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition “[i]f it plainly appears from

the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. . . .” Rule

4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

An “invalid extradition [is not] a sufficient ground upon which to grant habeas relief

once the fugitive is present in the jurisdiction from which he fled.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, __

F.3d __, 2007 WL 1574874 *3 (9th Cir. Jun. 1, 2007). “In the case of extradition, ‘[o]nce

a fugitive has been brought within custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is

no longer proper subject of any legal attack by him.’” Harden v. Pataki 320 F.3d 1289, 1299

(11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958, 960 (5th Cir. 1978) (per

curiam)). “[A] person forcibly abducted from one state without warrant or authority of law

and placed in the demanding state's custody does not have a claim for release in habeas

corpus.” Johnson v. Buie, 312 F. Supp. 1349, 1351 (W.D. Mo. 1970) (cited with approval

in Siegel, 566 F.2d at 960). “Once the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right

to challenge extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the

asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no longer at issue.” Barton

v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir. 1997). Moreover, a challenge to extradition would

not affect the underlying charges. See id. (citing Buie, 312 F. Supp at 1351).

Here, Petitioner has already been extradited to California and is no longer detained

by Arizona, so habeas relief in connection with the extradition is no longer available and is

not a proper ground for challenging the California conviction. The Court will dismiss the

Petition without prejudice. 

Petitioner is advised that if he wishes to challenge his California conviction in a

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he should file his case in the appropriate United

States District Court in California, not in Arizona. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:07-cv-01308-SMM--DKD Document 3 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice and the

Clerk of Court must enter a Judgment of dismissal. 

DATED this 13th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01308-SMM--DKD Document 3 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 3