Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02284/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02284-1/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 06CV2284-J / 98CR0088-J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIZ VALENCIA-MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06CV2284-J

Crim No. 98CR0088-J

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

SECTION 2241 HABEAS PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On January 12, 1998, this Court sentenced Petitioner Jose Luiz Valencia-Mendoza

(“Petitioner”) to 199 months in custody and five years supervised release for conspiracy to

distribute cocaine in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846 . [No.

98CR0088, Doc. No. 2.] On October 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion in this Court entitled

“Petition by the Great Writ in Accordance with Article I, § 9, Paragraph 2.” [No. 06CV2284,

Doc. No. 1.] For purposes of ascertaining the correct fee, the Court construed Petitioner’s

motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [No. 06CV2284, Doc. No. 2.] On

November 7, 2006, Petitioner paid the filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court

DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition without prejudice. 

Case 3:06-cv-02284-J-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/12/06 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 06CV2284-J / 98CR0088-J

Before filing the instant Petition, Petitioner filed a document in this Court entitled

“Request for Court Order Directing BOP to Credit Defendant’s Sentence with All Time Spent in

Pre-trial Custody to Reflect Concurrent Sentence Ordered By This Court.” [No. 05CV2174,

Doc. No. 10.] The Court found that the document could be construed as a Petition for Writ of

Habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Petitioner was challenging the duration of his

sentence. [No. 98CR0088, Doc. No. 13.] Pursuant to United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456,

463-64 (9th Cir. 2000), the Court issued an Order notifying Petitioner about his options and

informing Petitioner of the consequences of choosing these options. (See Order at 3-4.) The

Court cautioned Petitioner that if he elected to file a § 2255 motion, it would be subject to a oneyear statute of limitations. (See id. at 4.) Petitioner filed a document stating that he opted to

withdraw his motion and “file a complete habeas corpus” at a later date. [No. 98CR0088, Doc.

No. 15.] Petitioner subsequently filed the instant Petition, stating that he chose to file a general

writ of habeas corpus rather than a § 2255 motion because of the Court’s “warning” regarding

the statute of limitations. (See Pet. at 1.) 

A § 2241 motion must be filed in the district where the petitioner is in custody. See

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). When Petitioner filed

the instant Petition, he was being held in the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California,

located in the Central District of California. Because the Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the

instant motion, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 12, 2006

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Case 3:06-cv-02284-J-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2