Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00021/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00021-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

18cv0021 MMA (AGS) 

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

ISIDRO LOPEZ-ROCHA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 18cv0021 MMA (AGS) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2] 

SUMMARILY DISMISSING 

PETITION 

[Doc. No. 1]

On December 5, 2017, Petitioner Isidro Lopez-Rocha was charged in a singlecount Information with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in 

violation of Title 21, United States Code, section 841(a)(1). See Case No. 17cr4104-

BTM, Doc. No. 12. The case remains pending. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, 

section 2241, regarding matters arising out of the ongoing criminal proceeding. See Doc. 

No. 1. Petitioner requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), claiming that he is 

unable to afford the requisite filing fee. See Doc. No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, 

Case 3:18-cv-00021-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv0021 MMA (AGS) 

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

the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP and summarily DISMISSES

the petition. 

DISCUSSION

 As an initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP fails to 

comply with the statutory requirements for seeking IFP status. Pursuant to the applicable 

statute, if a petitioner fails to pay the $ 5.00 filing fee, then the petition must be 

accompanied by “a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the affidavit required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of the 

place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in 

any account in the institution.” See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.1

 Petitioner has not 

provided either the affidavit or the certificate. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial 

efficiency, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP based on his sworn 

statement that he cannot pay the filing fee required to initiate this action. 

 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is 

required to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it 

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to 

relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also 

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Challenges to the “manner, 

location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in 

the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 

curiam). 

A review of the petition reveals that Petitioner complains of events arising out of 

his ongoing criminal proceeding. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that someone other than 

his assigned defense counsel met with him at the detention facility and coerced him into 

                                               

1

 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 

at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 3:18-cv-00021-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv0021 MMA (AGS) 

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

agreeing to plead guilty and accept a sentencing range of 50 to 70 months. The petition is 

subject to dismissal on several grounds. 

First, relief under Section 2241 is available only if a federal inmate can show he is 

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner has not done so. Second, the Supreme Court has 

interpreted the “in custody” requirement to mean that the petitioner is in custody pursuant 

to the conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed. Maleng v. 

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Petitioner has not yet been convicted or sentenced in 

his criminal proceeding. Furthermore, Petitioner has not yet entered a change of plea, 

and thus any tentative agreement he may have been “coerced” into by some unknown 

individual is not binding upon the parties. Any other challenges to the current criminal 

charges against him may be brought by Petitioner via a separate motion filed in his 

criminal case. 

CONCLUSION

It plainly appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to 

relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Accordingly, the Court 

DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave 

to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (petition for habeas 

corpus may be dismissed without leave to amend if “it appears that no tenable claim for 

relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.”). The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter 

judgment accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 4, 2018 _______________________________________

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:18-cv-00021-MMA-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3