Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01063-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE ROJAS-VELASQUEZ, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-CV-1063 AWI/DLB

HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254

AND MOTION FOR STOLIKER TO

BE TRANSFERRED TO FEDERAL

CUSTODY 

On July 26, 2006, petitioner Jorge Rojas-Velasquez filed a

"Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

Person in State Custody" coupled with a "Motion for Stoliker To

Be Transferred to Federal Custody." By these pleadings,

petitioner seeks an order transferring him from state custody to

the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner, who is

presently incarcerated in the Sierra Conservation Center, names

the United States of America as respondent in both pleadings.

Petitioner was convicted in state court of assault with

great bodily harm and sentenced to a term in state prison of 9

Case 1:06-cv-01063-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 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

2

years. Thereafter, petitioner was indicted in the Eastern

District for violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1) and 1326. See

United States v. Jorge Rojas-Velasquez, No. CR-F-00-5426 REC. 

Petitioner was brought to the Eastern District of California from

state prison pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum,

which writ states that petitioner will “return to the custody of

the detaining facility upon termination of proceedings.” 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the federal charges and was

sentenced on May 13, 2002 to “the custody of the United States

Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 77

MONTHS[,] 29 months to be served concurrent with state sentence

and 48 months to be served consecutive to his current state

sentence.” Petitioner was returned to state custody pursuant to

the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum. 

Because of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum, the

state has retained primary jurisdiction of petitioner

notwithstanding his subsequent federal conviction and sentence. 

See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440 (9 Cir.1998), cert. denied, th

527 U.S. 1027 (1999). Therefore, because the United States does

not have custody of petitioner, the United States is not the

proper respondent to petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to Section 2254.

Furthermore, petitioner’s allegations do not demonstrate

that petitioner is entitled to the requested relief at this

juncture. California prisoners who have a state sentence

designated to run concurrently with a federal sentence have a

Case 1:06-cv-01063-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 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

3

right to be tendered by the state authorities to the federal

authorities. See In re Stoliker, 49 Cal.2d 75(1957); DOM §

72040.6.5 (A request can be made whenever there are concurrent

sentences, regardless of whether the other sentence is federal or

out-of-state, and regardless of which term comes first). As

explained in The California State Prisoners Handbook, (3 Ed. rd

2001), § 8.27(B):

A prisoner who has concurrent sentences and

wants to transfer to another jurisdiction

should submit a request in writing to the

case record office at the prison. The prison

should then send a letter to the other

jurisdiction informing authorities there that

the prisoner is available for transfer. The

law requires the CDC to send such a letter

whenever a prisoner with concurrent sentences

requests it to do so. If prison officials

refuse to follow this law, the prisoner can

file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to

force them to act.

Petitioner does not allege that he complied with these procedures

and that the CDC refused to send the requested letter. In

addition, the state right creates no obligation for the federal

authorities to accept the prisoner so tendered by the state

prison authority. see Jake v. Herschberger, 173 F.3d 1059, 1066

(7 Cir.1999). Here, because petitioner remains in state th

custody pursuant to his state sentence, petitioner cannot obtain

the relief requested by his motions. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Jorge Rojas-Velasquez’s Petition for 

"Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

Person in State Custody" and "Motion for Stoliker To Be

Case 1:06-cv-01063-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 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

4

Transferred to Federal Custody” are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01063-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 4