1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] ADAM D. BRAVEBOY, Case No. 2:21-cv-02110-JGB-KES 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 14 | TONYA JAMES. Warden AND DENYING CERTIFICATE □ , OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On March 5, 2021, the Court received a pro se petition for writ of habeas 21 | corpus under

(“Petition” at Dkt. 1) from Abram D. Braveboy 22 | (“Petitioner”), as well as a “Motion to Appropriate Venue” (Dkt. 2) and a 23 || supporting affidavit (Dkt. 3). 24 Petitioner is currently in the custody of the state of South Carolina at 25 | Kershaw Correctional Institution in Kershaw, South Carolina. (Pet. at 1 § 1); South 26 || Carolina Dep’t of Corr., Incarcerated Inmate Search, ID No. 284787.' In 2002, he 27 28 ' Available online at: https://public.doc.state.sc.us/scdc-public/ (last accessed

1 | was convicted of armed robbery and other crimes in a South Carolina state court, 2 | and he was sentenced to 35 years in state prison. (Pet. at 2 § 2); South Carolina v. 3 | Braveboy, Case Nos. G634953, G634954, G634955, G634963, G838062, 4 | G838063, G838059 (S.C. Richland Cnty. Ct. of Gen. Sessions).’ 5 This is not the first habeas petition that Petitioner has filed in this Court. In 6 | November 2020, the Court received a prior pro se petition from Petitioner citing 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2241. That petition argued that Petitioner should be released from custody 8 || because the criminal judgments against him were vacated in post-conviction 9 || proceedings in South Carolina state court; he claimed that he prevailed in that state 10 || court action because the state failed to timely respond to his summary judgment 11 | motion.* This Court dismissed the petition, finding that: (a) the petition was 12 | properly brought under § 2254 not § 2241; (b) venue was not proper in the Central 13 | District of California because it was unclear what connection Petitioner had to this 14 | state, if any; (c) the petition appeared to be an unauthorized second or successive 15 | petition’; and (d) dismissal rather than transfer to the proper venue in the District of 16 |; ——____ 17 March 11, 2021). 18 ? Public records of the South Carolina court are available online at: https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Richland/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx (last accessed 19 | March 11, 2021). The Court takes judicial notice of these and the other public 29 || records cited in this order. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it... can be 21 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably 22 | be questioned.”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“We may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record ... including 23 | documents on file in federal or state courts.’’). 24 > Braveboy v. South Carolina, No. 2016CP4005602 (S.C. Richland Cnty. Ct. 25 | of Gen. Sessions) (state court case in which Petitioner moved for post-conviction %6 relief). 7 * See Braveboy v. Cartledge, No. 8:11-cv-02075-TMC (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2012) (dismissing prior federal habeas petition under § 2254 as untimely).

1 | South Carolina was appropriate because Petitioner already had a § 2254 petition 2 | pending in that district which raised the same claims. Braveboy v. James, No. 2:20- 3 | cv-10609-JGB-KES (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020). 4 On February 8, 2021, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition in the District of South 5 || Carolina, which raised the same claims, was dismissed as frivolous, unexhausted, 6 | and untimely. The federal court found that the state post-conviction court had not 7 | invalidated Petitioner’s convictions as he claimed. Braveboy v. James, No. 8:20- 8 || cv-03486-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2021). At that time, the post-conviction 9 | proceedings appeared to be pending. The state court docket now shows that a 10 | “return and motion to dismiss” was filed on February 24, 2021 and a “conditional 11 | order of dismissal” was entered on March 4, 2021. Braveboy v. South Carolina, 12 | No. 2016CP4005602 (S.C. Richland Cnty. Ct. of Gen. Sessions). 13 II. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The present Petition, which was signed on March 3, 2021, raises the same 16 | claims as Petitioner’s prior petition in this Court. (See, e.g., Pet. at 5 [alleging 17 || “extraordinary ‘false imprisonment’” and due process violations because the “S.C. 18 | Richland County Court of Common Pleas, summary judgment court order[ed] for 19 | post-conviction RELEASE”’].) The Petition is therefore an unauthorized second or 20 || successive petition under § 2254. See

(b)(1) (“A claim presented 21 || inasecond or successive habeas corpus [petition] under section 2254 that was 22 | presented in a prior [petition] shall be dismissed.”). 23 Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is arguing that venue is proper in the 24 | Central District of California, he has not shown this to be true. The proper venue 25 | for a § 2254 habeas petition is either: (a) the district where the petitioner is 26 || presently confined, or (b) the district where he was convicted. See 28 U.S.C. 27 | § 2241(d); Dannenberg v. Ingle,

(N.D. Cal. 1993). Petitioner 28 || is neither confined in California nor was he convicted here. (Pet. at 1 J 1-2.) His

1 | vague assertion that “part of [the] underlying events took place” in this district is 2 | not enough to demonstrate venue is proper here. (Dkt. 2; see also Dkt. 3 at 2 3 | [alleging that the Central District of California “is the proper venue”’].) 4 The Petition should therefore be dismissed as an unauthorized second or 5 || successive petition under § 2254 and because venue is improper in this district. A 6 | certificate of appealability shall not issue because Petitioner has not “made a 7 | substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2); 8 || see also Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 9 III. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion 12 | to Appropriate Venue (Dkt. 2) is denied; judgment shall be entered dismissing the 13 | Petition; and a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 14 15 | DATE: March 30, 2021 Sel □□ 16 JESWY G. BERNAL UNWJED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 || Presented by: °| How, Sent 20 | KAREN E. SCOTT 41 | United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28