Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05544/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05544-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene H. Campbell
Petitioner
K. Mendoza-Powers
Respondent

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE H. CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-5544 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that is

very confusing but appears to allege that the California state courts wrongly decided his habeas

petitions in which he challenged the decision of the Bureau of Prison Terms ("BPT") that found

him unsuitable for parole and/or failed to set a term for him. Petitioner is incarcerated at Avenal

State Prison in Fresno County and was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

Errors in the state post-conviction review process are not addressable through federal

habeas corpus proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998). Such errors

do not generally represent an attack on the prisoner's detention and therefore are not proper

grounds for habeas relief. See Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.). They instead

generally pertain to the review process itself and not to the constitutionality of a state conviction

or execution of the sentence. See, e.g., id. (delay in state habeas proceeding not addressable in

federal habeas); Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir. 1989) (state court's

summary denial of petition for post-conviction relief is procedural deficiency in review process

that does no violence to federal constitutional rights); Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403, 1410

(5th Cir. 1987) (denial of hearing on state collateral proceedings not addressable in federal

habeas), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 838 (1987); see also Application of Gordon, 157 F.2d 659, 660

Case 3:06-cv-05544-SI Document 4 Filed 10/20/06 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

(9th Cir. 1946) (allegation that state court decided appeal improperly not enough to state claim

in federal habeas). Petitioner's claims that the state courts erred in deciding his state habeas

petitions must be dismissed. 

Even though it cannot consider a claim that the state court wrongly decided a habeas

petition, a federal court could consider the underlying claim if a federal constitutional violation

was alleged. Here, a federal court could entertain a habeas claim that the BPT violated

petitioner's federal constitutional rights when it denied parole. The petition does not allege such

a claim, however. That is, petitioner does not allege that the BPT or CDCR erred in executing

his sentence by denying parole or failing to set a parole date. Leave to amend will not be granted

because, even if petitioner alleged a claim a federal court could entertain, his petition would be

in the wrong venue. Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or

the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, a petition challenging the execution of

a sentence is preferably heard in the district of confinement. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne

v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). A challenge to the execution of petitioner's

sentence (such as a challenge to a denial of parole or a failure to set a parole date) belongs in the

district of confinement. Petitioner is confined in Fresno County, so any petition challenging the

execution of his sentence should be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

California, i.e., in Sacramento. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without

prejudice to petitioner filing a challenge to the execution of his sentence in the district in which

he is confined. The motion for judicial notice is DENIED as moot. (Docket # 2.) The clerk

shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05544-SI Document 4 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2