Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00995/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00995-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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 - 10cv995-WQH-POR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE BRAVO-MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10CV995 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

On May 6, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1) On August 27, 2010, Petitioner filed supplemental documents.

(ECF No. 10). Petitioner challenges his convictions in 1987 and 1989 due to corruption by the

police, the government, the court, and his attorney. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). He also asserts he is

a United States citizen by birth. Id. at 3. In the Petition, Bravo contends he is being held at

the Santa Ana Jail. (ECF. No. 1 at 1). In the supplemental documents, Petitioner states that

his address is “422 S. Birch St., Apt. 200, Santa Ana, CA 92701.” (ECF No. 10 at 1). 

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person “in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3). A habeas corpus petition challenges "the very fact or duration of his physical

imprisonment, and the relief [a petitioner may seek] is a determination that he is entitled to

immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

Case 3:10-cv-00995-WQH-POR Document 11 Filed 09/24/10 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

- 2 - 10cv995-WQH-POR

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The Court 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Petitioner does not allege that he is in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court concludes that

summary dismissal is warranted at this time. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. (ECF No. 1).

DATED: September 24, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00995-WQH-POR Document 11 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 2