1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID REINALDO ZAMORA CARDENAS, Case No.: 24-cv-0396-MMA (SBC) 11

Petitioner, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 UNKNOWN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to

(see Doc. No. 1), but has failed to pay the 19 $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons 20 discussed below, the case is dismissed without prejudice. 21 FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 22 Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the filing fee or 23 qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Petition is subject to dismissal without 24 prejudice. See CivLR 3.2; Rules 1(b), 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes 25 to proceed with this action, he must submit a copy of this order with the requisite $5.00 26 fee or adequate proof he cannot pay the fee. 27 /// 28 /// 1 VENUE 2 A habeas petition filed pursuant to

must be brought in the district 3 in which the petitioner is presently confined while a challenge under

4 must be brought in the district in which the petitioner was convicted. Hernandez v. 5 Campbell,

(9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the 6 Federal Correctional Institution Victorville, located in Adelanto, California (see Doc. No. 7 1 at 1), which is in San Bernardino County. As such, § 2241 jurisdiction exists in 8 Petitioner’s district of confinement, the Central District of California, Eastern Division, 9 and not in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. 84(c)(1); see also e.g. Dunne v. Henman, 10

(9th Cir. 1989) (“Where . . . a prisoner challenges the manner in which 11 the federal authorities are executing his federal sentences, it is not necessarily 12 advantageous to have the federal district court which sentenced him resolve his section 13 2241 habeas corpus petition . . . The proper forum to challenge the execution of a 14 sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.”), citing United States v. Giddings, 15

(9th Cir. 1984). 16 Meanwhile, “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act 17 of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was 18 imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was 19 without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the 20 maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the 21 court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2255(a) (emphasis added). While Petitioner has a criminal judgment issued by the 23 Southern District of California (see Doc. No. 59 in So. Dist. Cal. Case No. 20cr2723- 24 BAS-1), he indicates he is not intending to proceed with a challenge under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 2255 (see Doc. No. 1 at 3), but also states he “was told to write to the Court that 26 sentenced me to recalculate my jail credits.” (Id. at 2.) Thus, it is unclear whether 27 Petitioner seeks to challenge the sentencing court’s pronouncement of sentence or the 28 determination of prison officials as to when custody credits started accruing. In an | abundance of caution and because the instant habeas action in any event remains subject 2 || to dismissal for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, the Court will provide 3 || Petitioner an opportunity to clarify whether he intends to proceed with a challenge under

or

:! 5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee 7 requirement. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit a copy of this Order with 8 ||the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, no later than May 1, 9 ||2024. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District 10 || of California In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 11 With respect to venue, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to proceed with a habeas 12 || action pursuant to § 2241, he may do so by filing a Petition under

in his 13 ||present district of confinement as discussed above, currently the Central District of 14 California, Eastern Division. If Petitioner instead intends to challenge a conviction and 15 ||judgment entered in the Southern District of California, any such challenge may not be 16 || brought by way of § 2241 but may only be brought by way of § 2255. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: March 1, 2024 i LMitah Ub (dipllr 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO >] United States District Judge 22 23 24 || 26 also appears Petitioner recently filed a motion to reduce his sentence in So. Dist. Cal. 27 || Case No. 20cr2723-BAS-1. (See Doc. No. 60 in So. Dist. Cal. Case No. 20cr2723-BAS- 28 1, filed Jan. 25, 2024.) If Petitioner seeks to challenge the sentence pronounced by the sentencing court, it is unclear why this filing was not included with that motion.