Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00199/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

19cv0199 WQH (BGS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER MUNYORORO, 

Petitioner,

v.

R. JHILL, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv0199 WQH (BGS)

ORDER: (1) CONSTRUING 

PETITION AS ONE FILED 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE AS 

DUPLICATIVE OF 18cv0458 BAS 

(KSC)

Petitioner, as state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has 

not moved to proceed in forma pauperis. 

CONSTRUING PETITION AS ONE FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state 

prisoner attacking the validity of a state court conviction and sentence imposed by the 

state of California. Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but 

may only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. 

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 2254 is the proper 

jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual “in custody pursuant to 

a state court judgment”). Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect 

implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long as 

Case 3:19-cv-00199-WQH-BGS Document 2 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv0199 WQH (BGS)

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

the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 

for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 

other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.” [citations omitted.] Id. at 

1006 (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in 

original). Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the petition as one filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket accordingly.

THE PETITION IS DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE

The Court may dismiss a duplicative petition as frivolous if it “merely repeats 

pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Here, Petitioner has filed two petitions with this 

Court which contain the same claims. The Petition in this case, filed on January 28, 

2019, contains the same claims as a petition filed by Petitioner on June 1, 2018, and 

given case number 18cv0458 BAS (KSC). The petition in that case was dismissed on 

January 2, 2019. (See Order in S.D. Cal. case no. 18cv0458 BAS (KSC), ECF No. 14.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this case because the Petition in 

this case is duplicative of that filed in case number 18cv0458 BAS (KSC). The Clerk 

will close the file.

Dated: February 7, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00199-WQH-BGS Document 2 Filed 02/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2