Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01232/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01232-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN COOPER, Civil No. 12cv1232 BEN (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND

v.

WARDEN K. CHAPPELL,

Respondent.

On May 21, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed

in forma pauperis. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must either be accompanied by a $5.00

filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Local Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. §

2254.

Petitioner is a capital prisoner, having been sentenced to death in a California state court

in 1985. See Cooper v. Brown, 565 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit has instructed

that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in

custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his

underlying state court conviction.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004),

overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010). 

-1- 12cv1232

Case 3:12-cv-01232-BEN-NLS Document 2 Filed 05/24/12 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

Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under § 2241, but may only proceed with a habeas action

in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Moreover, even if Petitioner were able to proceed in this Court under § 2241, such an

action would be subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the named respondent, the

Warden of San Quentin prison, where Petitioner is presently confined, is not located within the

Southern District of California. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1989)

(district court lacks jurisdiction to consider § 2241 petition if custodian is outside district).

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2012

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

-2- 12cv1232

Case 3:12-cv-01232-BEN-NLS Document 2 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 2