Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00647/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00647-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Manuel Fontes-Quintero
Petitioner
W.J. Sullivan
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

JESUS MANUEL FONTES-QUINTERO,

Petitioner,

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00647 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

AMEND 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 on May 26, 2006. It appears that Petitioner was

convicted in the Kern County Superior Court of possession of a controlled substance and driving

under the influence. (Petition, attachment.) Petitioner was subsequently indicted and convicted

in this Court for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)&(b)(2), being a deported alien found in the

United States, and sentenced to 51 months. (Petition, at 1.) Petitioner was brought to the Eastern

District of California from state prison pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum,

which states that petitioner will “return to the custody of the detaining facility upon termination

of proceedings.” Petitioner was returned to state custody pursuant to the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Ad Prosequendum. 

Petitioner contends that he is being subjected to double jeopardy and cruel and unusual

punishment by his continued confinement in state prison, despite his subsequent federal sentence

Case 1:06-cv-00647-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 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 “DOM” stands for the California Department of Corrections Operations Manual, available at

1

http://www.corr.ca.gov/budgetregs/docs/DOM/DOMChapt7.pdf 

2

that was ordered to be served concurrent to his state sentence. Petitioner requests transfer to

from state custody to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 

Because of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum, the state has retained primary

jurisdiction of petition, despite his subsequent federal conviction and sentence. See Taylor v.

Reno, 164 F.3d 440 (9 Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1027 (1999). California prisoners who th

have a state and federal sentence to run concurrent, have the right to be tendered by the state

authorities to the federal authorities. See In re Stoliker, 49 Cal.2d 75 (1957); DOM § 72040.10 1

(In re Stoliker (1957) 49 Cal.2d 75 requires that the Department make an inmate available to the

U.S. Attorney General or their authorized representative for concurrent service of a previously

imposed federal term, regardless of which term was first imposed); DOM § 72040.10.1

(“Inmates with detainers for unexpired sentences from other jurisdictions may submit a written

request to the Director for transfer to the other jurisdiction for service of their sentence

concurrent with the California sentence. The request shall be submitted to the facility CCRM for

processing.”) 

Attached to Petitioner’s petition is a “Request for Transfer” CAC 1704 form, signed by

Petitioner on April 17, 2006, requesting his transfer pursuant to In re Stoliker to federal custody. 

(Petition, Attachment.) Petitioner has not indicated whether the Department of Corrections has

processed and complied with Petitioner’s request for a transfer. See Isreal v. Marshall, 125 F.3d

837, 839-840, n.2 (9 Cir. 1997) (acknowledged inmate’s right to request transfer to another th

jurisdiction, and assuming without deciding that such request for transfer created a federally

protected liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).) However, the state

right creates no obligation for the federal authorities to accept the prisoner so tendered by the

state prison authority. See Jake v. Herschberger, 173 F.3d 1059, 1066 (7 Cir. 1999); cf. Isreal v. th

Marshall, 125 F.2d at 839-840. 

Here, because it is unclear whether prison officials have complied with the requirements

outlined in In re Stoliker, the Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to amend the petition as

Case 1:06-cv-00647-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 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

3

to his limited federal claim.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall file

an amended petition; and

2. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the petition

be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 25, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3