Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

DISCUSSION

The instant petition was filed on July 26, 2013. The Court has conducted a preliminary review 

of the petition and concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

DYLAN STAUB,

 Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01162-AWI-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Case 1:13-cv-01162-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 4
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

without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 

leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. Hernandez v. 

Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity 

or constitutionality of his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or 

correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); 

Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997); 

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing court 

has jurisdiction. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally attack a federal 

conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United 

States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1980). A federal prisoner, however, who is challenging the 

manner, location, or conditions of his sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Here, Petitioner alleges that he was arrested in Kern County, California, on January 14, 2010 

and, on February 19, 2010, charged with felony violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.9( e), 

i.e., transferring, receiving, or concealing proceeds from a transaction involving controlled substances. 

(Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner was also charged with a misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol. 

(Id.). However, before Petitioner could be arraigned on the state charges, he was arrested by federal 

authorities and eventually pleaded guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(, (b)(1)(B)(vii), 

cultivation and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. (Id.). On March 15, 2011, Petitioner 

was sentenced to a 65-month prison term in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”). (Id.). Petitioner is currently serving that sentence in custody of the BOP in a facility in 

Oregon. (Id.). 

The petition alleges that the State of California has failed to try him on the state charges in a 

timely manner, that any future prosecution would be barred, and that he is entitled to the return of 

approximately $47,000 in cash that was confiscated from his trunk at the time he was originally 

arrested. (Doc. 1, p. 4). As part of his guilty plea in federal court, Petitioner agreed to forfeit five 

Case 1:13-cv-01162-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 4
3

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

weapons that were confiscated at his arrest, all “ammunition and contraband seized” in his case, and 

his automobile he was driving when arrested. (Doc. 1, p. 11). The federal judgment does not 

specifically refer to the $47,000 and, it appears from Petitioner’s allegations, that this money was 

seized by state authorities, not federal authorities. 

Based on these allegations, the Court concludes that no habeas jurisdiction exists. Petitioner is 

not challenging the manner, location, or conditions of his sentence's execution. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 

135 F.3d at 1123. Rather, Petitioner is seeking to recover from the State of California money seized

by state law enforcement authorities when Petitioner was arrested on state criminal charges. It appears 

from the petition that those charges have remained pending and that Petitioner has yet to be tried on 

those state charges. Under those circumstances, Petitioner should seek his remedies with the 

governmental entity that seized the money, i.e., the State of California, not in a habeas corpus petition 

in federal district court. As mentioned, federal habeas jurisdiction for federal inmates is limited to 

challenges to the “manner, location, or conditions” of Petitioner’s federal sentence’s execution. 

Habeas jurisdiction does not extend to recovery of money purportedly forfeited under state law in a 

state criminal prosecution that has yet to occur. 

Petitioner reliance upon Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 41(g), is misplaced. That rule provides as 

follows:

(g) Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of 

property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The motion 

must be filed in the district where the property was seized.... 

Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 41(g). However, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “govern the 

procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of 

appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 1(a)(1)(emphasis 

supplied). Nothing in those rules suggests that they are applicable to, or extend to, property seized in a 

purportedly unlawful search and seizure by state authorities pursuant to a state criminal proceeding. 

As mentioned, Petitioner’s remedy is to seek the return of the seized money through lawful channels 

within the judicial system of the State of California. This Court’s habeas jurisdiction does not extend 

to retrieving moneys seized in state criminal proceedings.

///

Case 1:13-cv-01162-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/22/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be 

served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01162-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 08/22/13 Page 4 of 4