Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00283/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00283-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03364Kulka_dwlta.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. KULKA,

Petitioner,

 v.

K. HARRIS, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 13-03364 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03364Kulka_dwlta.wpd 2

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison in Represa,

California, which lies within Sacramento County. According to the petition and the

attachments thereto, petitioner is serving a seventeen years to life sentence for

second degree murder. (Pet. at 2, 10.) However, the form petition Petitioner used to

file this action is sorely lacking all the necessary information by which this Court

can determine the nature of his claims, i.e., whether he is challenging the denial of

parole or his underlying state conviction. For example, under section (A), he

indicates that he is challenging the “Board of Prison Terms” at “RJD Facility,” and

then later in the petition he asserts that he is entitled to a sentence no longer than 25

years for his crime. (Id. at 2, 6.) It appears that his conviction was out of San Diego

County. (Id. at 10.) 

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the

district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally

have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of

conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue

v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition is directed to the

manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time

credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R.

2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). In either case,

this Court is not the proper venue for this action because Petitioner was convicted

out of San Diego County, which is within the venue of Southern District of

California, and he is currently confined within Sacramento County, which is within

the venue of the Eastern District of California. 

Furthermore, with respect to the exhaustion of his state court remedies,

Petitioner states that he filed an “Executive Appeal” to the White House in late

2012, (Pet. at 4), and that his petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States

Supreme Court was denied in 2000. Prisoners in state custody who wish to

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03364Kulka_dwlta.wpd 3

challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their

confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct

appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court

available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they

seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Before he may challenge

either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this Court,

Petitioner must have presented to the California Supreme Court any claims he

wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding

every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted). If available state

remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the

petition. See id., 455 U.S. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.

1988). 

In the interest of justice, Petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file an

amended petition to cure the deficiencies discussed above. Petitioner must provide

all the information required on the court’s form petition, particularly with respect to

his underlying state conviction. If Petitioner is challenging a recent denial of parole,

he must identify the date and location of the decision. Secondly, he must show that

all the claims have been exhausted. For this purpose, Petitioner shall be provided

with the court’s form petition to use to file an amended petition. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner must, 

within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, file an amended petition

challenging the lawfulness of the state conviction for which he is currently

incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16

(1982). The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order, No. C 13-03364 EJD (PR), and must include the words AMENDED

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.13\03364Kulka_dwlta.wpd 4

PETITION on the first page. The Court will transfer this matter to the proper

venue once the nature of Petitioner’s claims is made clear, i.e., whether he is

challenging his underlying state conviction or a recent parole decision. 

Failure to file a timely response in accordance with this order will result

in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

Petitioner.

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form petition with a copy of

this order to Petitioner. 

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

11/12/2013

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KULKA,

Petitioner,

 v.

K. HARRIS,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV13-03364 EJD 

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 , 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.

James E. Kulka C41843 SB307

Folsom State Prison

P. O. Box 715071

Represa, CA 95671-5071

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

11/13/2013 11/13/2013 /s/

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 11/13/13 Page 5 of 5