Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01581/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01581-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth K. Knight
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH K. KNIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:06-CV-01581 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant

to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, following his

conviction by guilty plea on October 2, 1980, to first degree murder in violation of Cal. Penal

Code § 187(a) with enhancement for use of a firearm during commission of the offense in

violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 12022(a) and 12022.5. On November 20, 1980, Petitioner was

sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of twenty-five years to life plus two years. 

On November 7, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court. In his petition, Petitioner contends the California Board of Prison Hearings

("BPH") has failed to abide by the terms of the plea bargain Petitioner entered into on October 2,

Case 1:06-cv-01581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 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

2

1980.

DISCUSSION

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its

enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008 (1997); Jeffries

v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997), quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5 th th

Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy,

521 U.S. 320 (1997) (holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). 

The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the AEDPA; thus, it is governed by its

provisions.

Petitioner is in custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to a state

court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for his habeas petition because he

meets the threshold requirement of being in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. Sass v.

California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9 Cir.2006) (“Section 2254 ‘is the th

exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court

judgment, even when the petition is not challenging his underlying state court conviction.’”);

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9 Cir.2004). th

Petitioner frames the issue in his petition as a challenge to the decision by the parole

board. 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 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).

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where the petition challenges the conviction, the proper

forum is the district where the petitioner was convicted. Where a petition is premised on events

relating to Petitioner's parole proceedings, the proper forum is where the petitioner is confined. 

Case 1:06-cv-01581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that

"[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is

confined.")

Although Petitioner frames his petition as challenging the decision by the BPH, the basis

for the petition is an attack on the plea agreement that occurred in the underlying conviction.

According to Petitioner, his attorney "alluded to Petitioner and his mother . . . that he would

serve no more than fifteen years." Petition at 24. He claims he should have been released

pursuant to this plea agreement over twelve years ago. As a result, he claims his plea agreement

has been breached, and his plea was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary. Because Petitioner is

challenging the underlying plea agreement, the proper forum is the district where Petitioner was

convicted. As Petitioner was convicted in San Bernardino County, the proper forum is the

Central District of California. If it is Petitioner's desire to challenge the plea agreement, he should

file a habeas petition challenging his conviction in that Court.

To the extent that Petitioner challenges the decision of the BPH, his claim is without

merit. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life plus two years. To date,

Petitioner alleges he has served over twenty-six years. The actual time Petitioner has served is

not beyond the sentence prescribed by the sentencing court. Therefore, this challenge to the

execution of Petitioner's sentence fails. The BPH is not bound by something Petitioner's defense

counsel may have "alluded" to at trial; it is bound by the actual sentence.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

be DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment.

This Findings and Recommendations 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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.” 

Case 1:06-cv-01581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 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

4

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: November 29, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 4 of 4