Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00664/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00664-0/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

27

28

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv0664_dism .w pd, 4511 -1- 11cv0664

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT ROLES, Jr., Civil No. 11-0664 LAB (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

RIVERSIDE COURTS, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Kern Valley State

Prison, located in Kern County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner’s state

court conviction occurred in Riverside County Superior Court, which is located within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of California,

Case 3:11-cv-00664-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/05/11 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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv0664_dism .w pd, 4511 -2- 11cv0664

Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Thus, jurisdiction exists in either the Eastern District

or the Central Districts, but not in the Southern District.

If Petitioner seeks to challenge his state court conviction, jurisdiction is more appropriate

in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. If he

seeks to challenge a parole eligibility decision, jurisdiction is more appropriate in the United

States Court for the Eastern District of California. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice to

Petitioner refiling a petition in the appropriate court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00664-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 04/05/11 Page 2 of 2