Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00638-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Lee Doss
Petitioner
James D. Hartley
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY LEE DOSS,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00638 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIM

TWO OF PETITION

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 8, 2008. In response

to the Court’s order, Petitioner submitted a declaration that the petition was signed under penalty

of perjury on June 6, 2008. (Court Doc. 5.) 

Petitioner raises the following two claims in his petition: (1) the B.P.H abused its

discretion by denying parole based solely on the circumstances of the commitment offense; and

(2) the trial court erred in sentencing and the abstract of judgment is incorrect. As to the former

claim, Petitioner states that the Parole Board informed him to bring the issue back to the

sentencing court. (Petition, at 5.) 

On the form petition, Petitioner states that he was convicted and sentenced in Compton

Superior Court. (Petition, at 1.) The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than

one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant

Case 1:08-cv-00638-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 06/18/08 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

resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property

that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

As Claim Two relates to Petitioner’s underlying conviction and sentence by the Compton

Superior Court, which is in the Central District of California, the claim must be raised in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California. Therefore, because this Court

does not have jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s challenge to his sentence, Claim Two must be

dismissed, without prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Claim Two of the instant

petition be DISMISSED, without prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

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

Within fifteen (15) 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 Recommendations.” 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: June 16, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00638-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2