Sanchez v. Pfeiffer

Full title: JOSEPH EUGENE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 9, 2016

Civil No. 16cv2975-AJB (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2016)

Opinion

Civil No. 16cv2975-AJB (BLM)

12-09-2016

JOSEPH EUGENE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, Respondent.

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) CONSTRUING PETITION AS ONE FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

On December 5, 2016, Joseph Eugene Sanchez ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the facility in which he is presently confined, and therefore cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court will file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION

AS ONE FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is a state prisoner attacking a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in the loss of custody credits. (Pet. at 1.) Therefore, Petitioner may not proceed under section 2241, but may only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that section 2254 "is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction."), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). Accordingly, the Court will CONSTRUE the Petition as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and not one file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 9, 2016

/s/_________

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge