Jorge Gonzales v. Kimberly Thornton, Acting Warden, High Desert State Prison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORGE GONZALES, Case No.: 25-cv-3814-AJB-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE KIMBERLY THORTON, Acting Warden, High Desert State Prison, Respondent.

18 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently confined at the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, is proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary action. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

22 Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

25 In addition, a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner may be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). | || Petitioner is presently confined at the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, || which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the ||Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner indicates that he was || convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (see Doc. No. | at 5) which is within 5 jurisdictional boundaries the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner here challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, and although ||he appears to indicate in the Petition that it took place at the High Desert State Prison (see || Doc. No. 1 at 35) it is not entirely clear. But in any case, there is no indication in the Petition 9 the proceeding took place in the Southern District of California. Thus, habeas 10 jurisdiction clearly exists in the Eastern District of California and the Central District of || California, Western Division, but there is no indication in the Petition that jurisdiction lies 12 the Southern District of California. Rather, it appears jurisdiction over this Petitioner ||most appropriately lies in the Eastern District of California where Petitioner 1s confined 14 where the disciplinary proceedings apparently took place. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 || F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence 16 the district where the prisoner is confined.”)

17 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee |}requirement and without prejudice to Petitioner to file the Petition in a Court with proper || jurisdiction.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 ||Dated: January 16, 2026 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge