Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01349/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01349-0/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENA,

Petitioner,

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 15-1349 JSW (PR)

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

Case 4:15-cv-01349-JSW Document 9 Filed 06/01/15 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

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 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01349-JSW Document 9 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2