Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03868/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03868-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO SANTANA ORTIZ, 

Petitioner, 

 vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON-SAN LUIS

OBISPO,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-3868 JSW (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at the

California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, has filed a petition in this Court

requesting relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which the Clerk has filed as

a petition seeking habeas corpus relief. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

It is not clear to this Court whether Petitioner is attempting to mistakenly file this

application in the wrong court when it is intended for the immigration courts, or whether

Petitioner is actually seeking habeas relief from the federal courts. However, Petitioner

has not filed his application in the right district.

Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state

prisoner who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. §2254,

for instance a pre-trial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose

conviction has been reversed on appeal. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058

(9th Cir. 2007) (pre-trial double jeopardy challenge); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002,

1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing “awaiting extradition” and pretrial detention as examples of

when § 2241 applies). Previously, district courts had habeas jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 to review final orders of removal on constitutional and statutory grounds,

Case 3:09-cv-03868-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

if judicial review was unavailable in the court of appeals. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S.

289, 314 (2001). However, on May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the REAL ID Act of

2005, which expanded the jurisdiction of the circuit courts over final orders of removal. 

The Act made the circuit courts the "sole" judicial body able to review challenges to

final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal. Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418

F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231,

§ 106(a)). To accomplish this streamlined judicial review, the Act eliminated habeas

jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of

deportation, exclusion, or removal. Id. (citing § 106(a)(1)(B) (amending 8 U.S.C. §

1252)). The REAL ID Act's jurisdiction-stripping provision "does not apply to federal

habeas corpus petitions that do not involve final orders of removal." Nadarajah v.

Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006). "Therefore, in cases that do not involve

a final order of removal, federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court,

and on appeal . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Id. at 1076 (Sri Lankan national who

obtained immigration relief could challenge his continued detention in a habeas petition);

cf. Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding district

court has jurisdiction to review non-habeas action for declaratory relief challenging

revocation of visa by Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services). But cf. Hassan

v. Chertoff, 543 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding district courts lack

jurisdiction under the Act to review denials of discretionary relief by Attorney General

or Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether such decision was made in a

removal proceeding). 

Because Petitioner’s application does not provide enough information, it is

unclear whether this section of the REAL ID Act applies here. However, Petitioner’s

application must be transferred because jurisdiction does not lie in this district. Section

2241 allows "the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit

judge" to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(a). The Court has interpreted the “within their respective jurisdictions” language

Case 3:09-cv-03868-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

of § 2241 to mean nothing more than that the court issuing the writ must have

jurisdiction over the custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440-442 (2004). As

to challenges under section 2241 to present physical confinement, this is not

synonymous with any district in which the respondent is amenable to service of process. 

Id. at 442-44. “[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement,

jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442-43. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this matter

to the United States District Court for the Central District of California forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03868-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO SANTANA ORTIZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON - SAN LUIS

OBISBO, et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-03868 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Alfredo Santana Ortiz F90047

California State Prison

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409

Dated: January 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-03868-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 4