Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00999/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00999-0/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

3:17-cv-00999-H-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

GILBERT MENDEZ CARABELLO, by 

Assignee1 Mumina Rahman,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00999-H-AGS

ORDER:

(1)DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION, and

(2)DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[Doc. Nos. 1, 2]

Petitioner Gilbert Mendez Caraballo is a pretrial detainee in Cleveland Ohio. (Doc. 

No. 1 at 1.) On May 16, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Along with his petition, Petitioner paid the required $5 filing fee. On 

May 26, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

 

1 The case is brought by an assignee instead of by the Petitioner personally. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) It does not 

appear that the assignee is an attorney. The petition and the motion are both signed by the assignee and 

not by the Petitioner himself. (Doc. No. 1 at 8, Doc. No. 2 at 2.) All motions and pleadings must be 

signed by either an attorney of record or the party personally. FED. R. CIV. P. 11. Thus, while the Court 

does not reach the issue, the Court would likely be required to strike the petition and the motion if the 

Court had jurisdiction over this matter. See id.; Ashker v. Rowland, 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 3:17-cv-00999-H-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-00999-H-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

(Doc. No. 2.) For the reasons below, the Court dismisses the habeas petition for lack of 

jurisdiction and denies the IFP motion as moot. 

Background

Petitioner Gilbert Mendez Caraballo is a pretrial detainee in Cleveland Ohio. (Doc. 

No. 1 at 1.) On February 11, 2015, an arrest warrant was issued for Petitioner in the 

Northern District of Ohio. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS, Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner was indicted 

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 

21 USC §§ 846, 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), and use of a telephone to 

facilitate drug trafficking in violation of 21 USC § 843(b). (Id.) Petitioner was arrested in 

March 2016, and he made an initial appearance before a magistrate judge in the Southern 

District of California. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS, Doc. No. 3.)

While in the Southern District of California, Petitioner signed a waiver of his right 

to an identity hearing and production of the warrant pursuant to Rule 5 and 5.1 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS-1, Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner also 

waived his right to a detention hearing. (Id.) Petitioner’s attorney also signed the waiver. 

(Id.) Based on the waiver, the magistrate judge ordered Petitioner detained without 

prejudice. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS-1, Doc. No. 7.) The magistrate then signed a warrant of 

removal, commanding the United States Marshal to deliver Petitioner to the Northern 

District of Ohio. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS-1, Doc. No. 10.)

Petitioner now challenges the magistrate judge’s order detaining petitioner without 

prejudice. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) 

Discussion

I. Jurisdiction

Generally, a prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in 

order to “challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution.” 

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a prisoner “may 

bring a § 2241 habeas petition only in the district court that has personal jurisdiction over 

his current custodian.” Dohrmann, 36 F. App’x at 881; see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 

Case 3:17-cv-00999-H-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-00999-H-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

204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (“a habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2241 must be 

heard in the custodial court”). “A custodian ‘is the person having a day-to-day control over 

the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce ‘the body’ of the petitioner.’” 

Brittingham, 982 F.2d at 379 (internal citation omitted). 

Here, Petitioner was already in custody in the Northern District of Ohio when he 

filed his petition. (Doc. No. 1 at 1; see also 3:16-mj-00791-NLS-1, Doc. No.10.) Thus, the 

Northern District of Ohio is the district that has personal jurisdiction over Petitioner’s 

“current custodian.” See Dohrman, 36 F. App’x at 881-82. It does not matter that Petitioner 

was previously in custody in the Southern District of California. What matters is which 

district had custody of Petitioner when he filed his petition. For example, in Dohrman a 

petitioner filed a § 2241 petition while on supervised release. Id. The Ninth Circuit 

explained that the relevant custodian would be the petitioner’s supervised release 

administrator for the district in which the petitioner resided when the petition was filed. Id.

The court explained that if the petitioner were to move to a different district, then the new 

district would obtain jurisdiction over any petition filed while the petitioner was living in 

the new district. Id. 

Because this Court is not Petitioner’s custodial court for purposes of his petition, this 

Court does not have jurisdiction over the petition. See Davis v. Quintana, No. 10-CV-1419 

MMA AJB, 2011 WL 181740 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) (dismissing § 2241 petition because 

it was filed with a court that was not in the custodial district). 

When a “court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the 

interest of justice, transfer such action . . . to any other such court in which the action . . .

could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Thus, the 

Court is obligated to transfer this action to the custodial district if it is in the interest of 

justice to do so. But transfer is “improper where the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie 

showing of a right to relief, because the interests of justice would not be served by transfer 

of such a case.” Clark v. Busey, 959 F.2d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Ferris v. 

Department of the Navy, 810 F.2d 1121, 1123 (Fed. Cir.1987).

Case 3:17-cv-00999-H-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-00999-H-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 petition challenges an order by a magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The order

states that Petitioner agreed to waive his right to a detention hearing, stipulating to his 

detention. (3:16-mj-00791-NLS-1, Doc. No. 7.) The record supports the order—Petitioner 

and his attorney both signed a form by which Petitioner waived his right to a detention 

hearing. (Id., Doc. No. 9.) Based on this waiver, the magistrate judge ordered Petitioner 

detained without prejudice. (Id., Doc. No. 7.) But because Petitioner’s detention is without 

prejudice, his habeas petition is premature. He is free to raise the issue of his detention in 

his current custodial court. Petitioner’s habeas petition therefore fails to make a prima facie 

showing of a right to relief. Accordingly, the Court declines to transfer the petition and 

instead dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction.

II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner filed a motion to proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees 

if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his assets, showing that he 

is unable to pay filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, given that the Court does not 

have jurisdiction over this action, the Court denies the motion to proceed IFP as moot.2

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

for lack of jurisdiction and denies the motion to proceed IFP as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2017

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

2 The Court would deny the motion to proceed IFP even if it was not moot. Petitioner submitted a statement 

of his assets that included a number of bonds. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) Petitioner failed to state the value of 

those bonds; therefore, he has not demonstrated an inability to pay a $5 filing fee. 

Case 3:17-cv-00999-H-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4