Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03785
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:25-cv-03785 AH (ADS) Date: June 18, 2025 Title: Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura

Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge

Kristee Hopkins None Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING SCREENING OF PETITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Petitioner Edwige Miranda Mondesir. (Dkt. No. 1). The Court’s review of the Petition, the Court’s own records, and public records reveals that the Petition has deficiencies.1 These deficiencies, discussed in more detail below, are potentially grounds for dismissal of this case. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE and file a response in writing by July 18, 2025 why the instant Petition should not be dismissed with prejudice.

1 Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 11 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:25-cv-03785 AH (ADS) Date: June 18, 2025 Title: Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Under Habeas Rule 4, this Court is required to conduct a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 If it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” the petition must be dismissed. Id.

III. PETITIONER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE “IN CUSTODY”

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, federal habeas relief is only available to a petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” The petitioner must be “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). The “in custody” requirement is threshold jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 2014).

Petitioner does not appear to be “in custody.” Although the Petition lists Petitioner’s place of detention as the Ventura County courthouse, it also discusses his current challenges traveling from Los Angeles to Ventura for court hearings. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 5.) Further, based on the Court’s review of the public records, Petitioner is not “in custody” in the California prison system or the jail closest to the Ventura County courthouse.3 Finally, Petitioner does not identify a state court judgment against him. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 2 (marking an “X” through space to provide case number and conviction information).) For all these reasons, as written, the Petition fails to establish the Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

2 References to individual Habeas Rules herein are to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases unless stated otherwise. 3 See California Incarcerated Records and Information Search, https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/ (last visited on June 5, 2025); Inmate Search, Ventura County Sherriff’s Official Website, https://sheriff.venturacounty.gov/inmate- information/inmate-search/ (last visited on June 5, 2025). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:25-cv-03785 AH (ADS) Date: June 18, 2025 Title: Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura IV. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

The Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner has the following three options: A. Option 1 – File a Written Response or First Amended Petition Petitioner is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order by July 18, 2025, providing information necessary to address the deficiencies identified in this Order.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to this Order blank copies of Central District forms CV-69 and CV-76A.

B. Option 2 – Proceed on the Petition Petitioner may proceed with the Petition in its current form. If Petitioner selects Option 2, it will be viewed by the Court as the inability to cure the defects identified in this Order. As such, the Court will recommend dismissal of the entire Petition to the District Judge.

To select Option 2, Petitioner must file a statement with the Court stating that he is selecting Option 2 and wishes to proceed on the Petition, despite the infirmities described in this Order. C. Option 3 – Voluntary Dismissal Petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this Petition without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Petitioner is advised, however, that there is a one-year statute of limitations on habeas claims by a prisoner in state custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner should review the application of the statute of limitations prior to selecting this option.

To select Option 3, Petitioner may use the Court’s Notice of Dismissal Form. The Clerk is directed to attach a blank copy of the Notice of Dismissal form (CV-09) for Petitioner’s convenience. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:25-cv-03785 AH (ADS) Date: June 18, 2025 Title: Edwige Miranda Mondesir v. The People of Ventura V. CONCLUSION

Petitioner is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order by July 18, 2025. Petitioner is expressly warned that his failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the Petition being dismissed for the reasons stated above, and/or for failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk kh

4 This Order is nondispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this Order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within 20 days of the date of the Order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015).