Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00645/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Lee Fritz
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS LEE FRITZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-00645-DMR (PR)

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

IN FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION;

DENYING HIS MOTION FOR 

CONTINUANCE; AND DISMISSING 

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner Thomas Lee Fritz has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus on a 

form indicating it was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 6. In addition, he has filed a motion entitled, “Motion for a 

Continueance [sic].” Dkt. 7.

This action has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may 

conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment. Appeal will be directly to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).

On March 17, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. 

Dkt. 5.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations in the petition, Petitioner is currently in custody at the 

Elmwood Correctional Complex in Milpitas, California. Dkt. 1 at 2. However, he claims to be 

challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by a federal court in Texas. Id. He alleges he is 

serving a fourteen-month sentence (“time served long ago”) and “1-3 years [of ] probation” for an 

alleged “false conviction” of possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of 

children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b). Id. Petitioner does not indicate any dates relating 

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to his federal sentence. A search of the court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records 

(“PACER”) system has revealed that Petitioner’s aforementioned federal conviction stemmed 

from an offense which ended in “November 2012,” resulting in a guilty plea on November 13, 

2013 and his re-sentencing on March 6, 2014. See Dkt. 105 in United States District Court for the 

Western Division of Texas Case No. SA-12-CR-1082(1)-OLG. Petitioner claims that he has 

served fifteen months of probation with “no infractions, no ‘dirty’ samples” and that he has been a 

“poster boy for [a] model probationer.” Id. at 6. He adds that he has served “27 months of solid 

incarceration,” which is “well beyond the Judge[’]s original order.” Id. Petitioner asks for 

“termination of probation.” Id.

As mentioned above, Petitioner has also filed a “Motion for a Continueance [sic],” in 

which he indicates that he is facing criminal charges in California. Dkt. 7 at 1. Petitioner claims

that his California case, C 1361775, “should be in April 13, 2015, et seq.” but he fails to elaborate 

what this means. Petitioner states that in his California case, he “will be using all evidence, in 

defense which the FBI & Federal Prosecutor’s Office, knew about in December 2012.” Id. 

Petitioner adds that he “expect[s] not only to be found ‘not guilty’ but a landslide victory against 

the D.A. of Santa Clara County . . . proving [his] innocence, and the Federal Prosecutor[’]s 

Office[’s] gross misconduct of the power entrusted by the people.” Id. Petitioner requests a 

continuance in order to “give the criminal court of California a chance to exonerate [him], and to 

get a certified copy of their transcripts as evidence.” Id. at 2. The court DENIES Petitioner’s 

motion for a continuance as it is unclear whether his pending California case has any bearing on 

the instant petition, which challenges his federal sentence. As further explained below, the court 

will direct Petitioner to file an amended petition.

In the instant petition, Petitioner does not specify exactly what charges he faces in 

California. However, the court notes that in a previously-filed habeas action, Petitioner had 

indicated that he pleaded “not guilty” to multiple charges, including violations of the following 

sections from the California Penal Code: § 269 (Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child); 

§ 288(b)(1) (Lewd or Lascivious Acts on a Child By Use of Force); §288.2(b) (Harmful Matter 

Sent With Intent of Seduction of Minor); and §311.11(a) (Possession or Control of Matter 

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Depicting Minor Engaging or Simulating Sexual Conduct). See Dkt. 1 in Case No. 14-4216 DMR 

(PR) at 2. Because Petitioner stated that he had a state habeas petition still pending before the 

state superior court at that time, his previously-filed petition appeared to be unexhausted for 

purposes of federal habeas corpus review. Therefore, the court dismissed his previously-filed 

petition with leave to amend for Petitioner to file an amended petition which clarified the nature 

and exhaustion status of all claims which he sought to raise in his federal petition. Dkt. 5 in Case 

No. 14-4216 DMR (PR). Because Petitioner failed to file a timely amended petition, his previous 

action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 7 in Case No. 14-4216 DMR 

(PR).

II. DISCUSSION

The court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing 

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 

application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is appropriate where the 

allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or 

false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

If Petitioner intends to proceed with the above-titled action he must file an amended 

petition, as the court is unable to conclude from the allegations in the instant petition whether he 

states cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief. Specifically, Petitioner has not provided, either 

in the spaces designated on the petition form, or in any attachments thereto, more specific facts

regarding his case. In addition, Petitioner seems to be challenging his federal conviction under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 instead of indicating that it was filed under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255.

The plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are similar. White v. Lambert, 

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

370 F.3d 1002, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 

F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Section 2241 authorizes “a district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus 

when a federal or state prisoner establishes that he ‘is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States.’” Id. at 1006 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a) and (c)(3)). As 

explained above, the relevant subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 authorizes a district court to issue 

“‘a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court . . . on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 

the United States.’” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)) (emphasis added). Section 2254 implements 

“the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody for some other reason, such as 

pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible 

without a conviction.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

Meanwhile, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court who wishes to attack 

collaterally the validity of his conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set 

aside or correct the sentence pursuant to § 2255 in the court which imposed the sentence. See 

Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 982 (1988). Only the 

sentencing court has jurisdiction. See id. at 1163. A prisoner may not attack collaterally a federal 

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

§ 2241.1 See Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991) (challenge to sentence 

following probation or parole revocation must be brought in sentencing court via § 2255 motion); 

Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162 (challenge to legality of conviction must be brought in sentencing court 

via § 2255 motion); see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980) (where 

 

1

There is an exception to this general bar: A federal prisoner authorized to seek relief 

under § 2255 may seek relief under § 2241 if he can show that the remedy available under § 2255 

is “‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [his] detention.’” United States v. Pirro, 104 

F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that 

this is a very narrow exception. See id. For example, the remedy under § 2255 generally will not 

be inadequate or ineffective due to delay in considering a motion under § 2255, see id. at 299 

(district court’s delay in considering § 2255 motion until direct appeals are resolved does not make 

§ 2255 motion inadequate or ineffective), or mere fact that a previous § 2255 motion was denied,

see Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964); Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162-63. 

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 7
5

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

Northern District of California

challenge is to alleged errors at or prior to sentencing remedy is § 2255 motion, not § 2241 writ). 

Here, Petitioner makes reference to both his federal conviction and his pending California 

charges. The court had to resort to gathering more information by conducting a search on PACER 

for his federal conviction, and by reviewing his previously-filed petition for his California charges. 

The court also assumes that if Petitioner was on probation for his federal conviction while facing

pending charges in California, then he may also be facing violation of probation charges. 

However, Petitioner makes no mention of allegations of probation violation in the instant petition. 

Further, Petitioner states he has been incarcerated for “27 months,” but he does not specify

whether he is in custody pursuant to his federal sentence, his pending California charges, or both. 

The court notes that instead of naming the warden or sheriff in charge of his place of incarceration 

as the Respondent in this action, Petitioner has named the “United States of America.” Dkt. 1 at 1. 

Finally, Petitioner has not indicated whether he exhausted appropriate judicial and/or 

administrative remedies before filing the instant petition. Consequently, the petition fails to set

forth sufficient information for the court to discern whether jurisdiction and venue are proper in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, let alone for the court to 

order any named respondent to show cause. See Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491-92 (holding petitioner 

must state claims with sufficient specificity to enable respondent to prepare a response). 

Moreover, it is unclear whether Petitioner intends to file a motion under § 2255, or a 

petition under § 2241 or § 2254. If Petitioner had intended to request the termination of his 

federal probation, then it would seem that he should have filed a motion under § 2255. Petitioner

may not seek habeas relief from this court under § 2255. He may seek relief under § 2255 only in 

the sentencing court, i.e., United States District Court for the Western Division of Texas. The 

§ 2255 motion must include the caption and case number used in his criminal case, Case No. SA12-CR-1082(1)-OLG. If instead Petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his federal 

sentence, he may do so by filing the enclosed form for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Finally, 

if Petitioner wishes to challenge any resulting conviction in Santa Clara County stemming from 

his California case, then he must file a new petition under § 2254 in a separate action but only 

after exhausting his state court remedies.

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

In sum, Petitioner will be given leave to file an amended petition to correct the deficiencies 

noted above. Depending on how Petitioner wishes to proceed, he must complete the proper form

in its entirety and provide all of the information required therein. The amended petition 

supersedes the initial petition and may not incorporate any part of it by reference. Petitioner must 

include in the amended petition all the claims he wishes to present, and any attachments he wishes 

the court to consider. If Petitioner fails to timely amend the petition as ordered herein, the petition 

will be dismissed without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has more than 

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Dkt. 6. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee for this 

habeas action no later than twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order. The failure to pay 

the filing fee within the twenty-eight-day deadline will result in dismissal of this action 

without prejudice.

2. Petitioner’s “Motion for a Continueance [sic]” is DENIED. Dkt. 7.

3. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended pleading must be 

simple and concise. Petitioner shall write the correct caption and case number for this action—

Case No. C 15-0645 DMR (PR)—on the form, and clearly label it “Amended Petition.” Petitioner 

may file an amended petition, as set forth above, no later than twenty-eight (28) days of the date 

of this Order. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this petition without 

prejudice and without further leave to amend.

4. Petitioner may use one of the enclosed forms, completed in full. As explained 

above, he may either: (a) seek relief under § 2255 in United States District Court for the Western 

Division of Texas and include the caption and case number used in his criminal case, Case No. 

SA-12-CR-1082(1)-OLG; (b) challenge the execution of his federal sentence by filing the 

enclosed form for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; or (c) challenge any resulting conviction in 

Santa Clara County stemming from his California case by filing a new petition under § 2254 in a 

separate action but only after exhausting his state court remedies.

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Northern District of California

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 

fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address 

changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the 

new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The court may dismiss a pro se action without prejudice when: 

(1) mail directed to the pro se party by the court has been returned to the court as not deliverable, 

and (2) the court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the 

pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 

F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner blank forms for the following: a § 2255 

motion, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

7. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 6 and 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00645-DMR Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 7