Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02812/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02812-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MONGER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2812 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

This is a habeas case which originally was filed in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California. That court transferred it here. 

BACKGROUND

In 1990 petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder. He was sentenced to prison

for fifteen years to life. He contends he raised the claims he presents here in state habeas

petitions. 

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 4:07-cv-02812-PJH Document 2 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

B. Venue

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

of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, the district of confinement is the preferable

forum to review the execution of a sentence. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman,

875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is confined in the Eastern District and was

convicted in this district.

The transferring court characterized petitioner as claiming that the state “violated his

guilty plea by not providing him a timely parole suitability hearing.” Such a claim would go

to the execution of petitioner’s sentence, hence a case involving only such a claim should

be heard in the district of confinement. In this case, however, petitioner presents not only

the claim identified by the transferring court, but also contends that his plea should be “set

aside” because he would not have entered into the agreement had he known that the state

would not carry out its part. That claim, essentially one that his guilty plea was not knowing

and voluntary, goes to the validity of the conviction and is properly brought in the district of

conviction.

Because petitioner includes a claim which goes to the conviction, because the case

has already been transferred once, and because venue is not improper here, the court will

retain the case.

C. Second or successive petition

Petitioner says that he has filed at least two other petitions in the Eastern District

claiming a violation of the plea agreement. It thus appears that this petition is second or

successive. Before a second or successive petition may be filed in the district court, the

petitioner must first obtain an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to

consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner will be ordered to show

cause why this petition should not be dismissed, for instance by showing that this petition is

not second or successive or that he has gotten the required order from the Court of

Appeals.

Case 4:07-cv-02812-PJH Document 2 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

CONCLUSION 

Petitioner is ordered to show cause within thirty days of the date this order is entered

why this petition should not be dismissed as second or successive. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b). If he does not respond, or if his response is insufficient to avoid the requirement

that he get permission from the Court of Appeals, this case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MONGER812.OSC-P

Case 4:07-cv-02812-PJH Document 2 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3