Edward Hernandez v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02364
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02364-AB-JPR Document 18 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD HERNANDEZ, ) Case No. CV 22-2364-AB (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 ) CORPUS WARDEN, ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 16 On April 7, 2022, Petitioner, then a Los Angeles County Jail 17 inmate, filed a habeas Petition. Since then, every piece of mail 18 the Court has sent him has been returned as undeliverable, and he 19 has not filed a change of address. According to the Los Angeles 20 County Sheriff’s Department’s Inmate Information Center website, 21 he was released from custody on April 19 for “time served.” L.A. 22 Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t Inmate Info. Ctr., https://app5.lasd.org/ 23 iic/Details (last visited Sept. 16, 2022) (search for booking 24 number 6232924). 25 On August 10, 2022, Respondent moved to dismiss the 26 Petition, noting that in it Petitioner did not challenge his own 27 conviction or sentence but rather alleged that sheriff’s deputies 28 lied and filed false reports in a case in which Petitioner was 1 Case 2:22-cv-02364-AB-JPR Document 18 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:137

1 the victim, People v. Gutierrez. (See generally Mot. Dismiss; 2 Pet. at 2 (noting that Petition concerns “other,” not conviction 3 or sentence), 9-10 (making allegations about law enforcement’s 4 conduct in Gutierrez case).) Thus, argues Respondent, Petitioner 5 was not “in custody” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) when he filed the 6 Petition, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate it. 7 (See Mot. Dismiss at 7-8.) Petitioner has not filed any 8 opposition, most likely because he never received the Court’s 9 case-management order. 10 For the reasons stated in Respondent’s motion to dismiss, 11 the Petition is SUMMARILY DISMISSED because the Court lacks 12 jurisdiction to hear it.1 See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 13 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that district courts lack jurisdiction 14 over habeas petitions that “attack” something other than 15 conviction or sentence petitioner is then serving). To the 16 extent Petitioner intended to file a civil-rights action under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Pet. at 5-6), the Court declines to so 18 construe the Petition because Petitioner has not paid the $350 19 filing fee and the Court has no way to communicate with him to 20 tell him he must do so — or to tell him anything else. 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Petition is also subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute, see, e.g., C.D. Cal. R. 41-6 (allowing court to 27 dismiss action when party fails to keep court informed of current address), and because it does not raise claims that sound in 28 habeas. 2 ase 2:22-cv-02364-AB-JPR Document 18 Filed 09/23/22 Page 3of3 Page ID #:138

1 Because jurisdiction is lacking, IT IS ORDERED that this 2 |) action is DISMISSED. (,

DATED: September 23, 2022 4 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE > Presented by: 5] ox Malt 7 || Jean Rosenbluth 3 U.S. Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28