Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02813/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02813-0/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 

JAN 22 2016 

CLER~(, u.s. DISTR:CT C()URT 

SCtrn-:b,J\l D::.JTkiGY GF CAUi:O;:,:rJI,f.'o. 

n J:y .. ~ .,, _____ .. _._~_h.~ __ . __ JJ.:~,~) ,~= e ~~ ':>:: .. 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 CHRISTOPHER LICONA, Case No. 15cv2813 BEN (JMA) 

12 

13 v. 

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

14 NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden, 

15 Respondent. 

16 

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

19 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 

20 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed 

21 informa pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the 

22 $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the 

23 case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. 

24 BASIS FOR PETITION 

25 Further, it appears that a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

26 U.S.c. § 2254 is the not proper vehicle for raising the claims presented in the Petition. 

27 Section 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition by an individual 

28 challenging his or her state custody as the result of a state court conviction. 28 U.S.C. 

1 ,ev7Rl1 HEN (JMA) 

Case 3:15-cv-02813-BEN-JMA Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 3
1 § 2254; see also White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 

2 section 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an 

3 individual "in custody pursuant to a state court judgment"), overruled on other grounds 

4 by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008). 

5 In his Petition, Petitioner states that, although he is in state custody, he seeks 

6 modification of his jed era I sentence in Case No. 08cr4581-JLS, which it appears he will 

7 begin serving after his state sentence is complete. Petitioner seeks to have his federal 

8 sentence modified to run concurrently with his state sentence. A challenge to the legality 

9 of detention by a federal prisoner must be presented in a motion filed pursuant to 28 

10 U.S.C. § 2255. In general, a section 2255 motion is the means for challenging a federal 

11 conviction or sentence. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952,955-56 (9th Cir. 2008); 

12 Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895,897 (9th Cir.2006); Ivy V. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 

13 1059 (9th Cir. 2003); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000). Section 2255 

14 provides as follows: 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a [federal] court ... 

claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the 

sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws 

of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction 

to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of 

the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to 

collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the 

sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 

In contrast, petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 

sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to 28 US.C § 2241 in the custodial court. 

24 See Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1990); see also United 

25 States V. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that petitioners may 

26 challenge the execution oftheir sentences by bringing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition); Brown 

27 V. United States, 610 F.2d 672,677 (9th Cir. 1980); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 

28 864 (9th Cir. 2000). 

2 

1 'icv?R 11 RFN 11M A) 

Case 3:15-cv-02813-BEN-JMA Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 3
1 CONCLUSION 

2 Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. If 

3 Petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his federal sentence, he must via the proper 

4 vehicle, as discussed above. For Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach 

5 to this Order a blank § 2241 petition form, a blank § 2255 petition form, and a blank 

6 application to proceed informa pauperis. 

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

8 

9 Dated: January ~ 6 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Umted States District Judge 

3 

1 'ie.v?Rl1 HEN ITMA) 

Case 3:15-cv-02813-BEN-JMA Document 2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 3