Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01313/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01313-1/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME ACOSTA,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv1313-DMS (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

F. GONZALEZ, Warden et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Jaime Acosta, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, seeking relief from a $5,000 restitution fine imposed in

connection with his murder conviction. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Bernard G. Skomal for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and

Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Petitioner

moved for leave to amend. On January 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation, recommending to grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss and deny Petitioner’s

motion for leave to amend.

In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court "shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may

Case 3:11-cv-01313-DMS-BGS Document 23 Filed 02/22/12 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

- 2 -

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation.

Because Petitioner challenges solely the restitution portion of his state court judgment, the

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d

976 (9th Cir. 2010). In his objections Petitioner argues the Court should construe his petition under

28 U.S.C. Section 2241 or grant leave to allege a claim under section 2241. However, when as here,

a petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, he can only proceed under section 2254.

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004, 1006-10 (9th Cir. 2004), rev’d on other grounds, Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation

is ADOPTED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Petitioner’s motion for leave to

amend is DENIED. The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01313-DMS-BGS Document 23 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 2