1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MIZRAIM MIRAMONTES- Case No.: 25cv68-CAB-VET PERAZA, 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION Petitioner, 13 v. 14 MICHAEL A. HERNANDEZ, et al, 15 Respondents. 16

17 On January 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 Section 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner is currently a defendant in an ongoing criminal 19 proceeding in this Court before a different district court judge. See generally 24cr1822- 20 AGS. In that criminal proceeding, Petitioner has been granted bond, although it appears 21 he is still incarcerated. [24cr1822, Doc. Nos. 29, 33.] Petitioner has also been allowed, 22 at his request, to represent himself in the criminal proceedings. [24cr1822, Doc. No. 33.] 23 In this petition, while there is some mention of conditions of confinement, Petitioner 24 primarily addresses the merits of the criminal case, and voices frustration with his 25 attorney and the trial court’s rulings. [Doc. No. 1 at 28-35.] 26 It is well established that a criminal defendant cannot use a petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus to challenge the district court's orders or assert defenses in a pending 28 1 || federal criminal prosecution. See Jones v. Perkins,

(1918) (“It is well 2 || settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular 3 || judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in 4 ||advance of a trial.”’). See also Oster v. United States, --F.Supp.3d--,

, at 5 |} *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2025)(so long as such detainees can adequately and effectively 6 || vindicate their rights and adjudicate the merits of their charges in their criminal 7 || proceedings, they cannot short-circuit those proceedings by simultaneously petitioning 8 || for release under § 2241.) Here, Petitioner has an adequate and effective means to 9 || vindicate his rights in the trial court, as shown by the fact that he was granted bond and 10 || allowed to represent himself in the criminal proceedings. Finally, given the ongoing 11 |/nature of the criminal proceeding, this Court declines to interfere with another judge's 12 || assigned case. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada,

, 1393 13 || (9th Cir. 1987) (“[a] district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another 14 || district court.”). Therefore, Petitioner's challenges to the district court’s actions in his 15 || federal criminal prosecution must be dismissed. Petitioner must properly pursue these 16 |/issues in his pending criminal case before the trial court. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The habeas corpus petition, Doc. No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 19 2. The Clerk's Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the file. 20 3. The Court certifies that, pursuant to

(a)(3), an appeal from this 21 || decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a 22 || certificate of appealability. See

(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate 23 appealability is therefore DENIED. 24 Dated: January 27, 2025 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28