Kirkpatrick v. Samuel

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-08609
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK, Case No. 24-cv-08609-JST

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 D. SAMUEL, Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set 14 forth below, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 15 DISCUSSION 16 On December 2, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, 17 stating that he wished to appeal the California Supreme Court’s September 18, 2024 Order in Cal. 18 Sup. Ct. C No. S004642, People v. Kirkpatrick. ECF No. 1. That same day, the Court sent 19 Petitioner a notice, informing him that this action was deficient because he had neither paid the 20 $5.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. The Court 21 informed Petitioner that, by December 31, 2024, he must either pay the filing fee or by file a 22 complete in forma pauperis application; or this action would be dismissed. Id. The deadline to 23 correct the deficiency has passed, and Petitioner has neither paid the filing fee nor filed an 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to 25 either pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application. 26 The Court makes the following additional observations to guide the Petitioner in the event 27 he intends to bring these claims in a future filing. 1 September 18, 2024, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court’s 2 || decision and Petitioner must seek review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United 3 States Supreme Court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486- 4 || 87 (1983) (“[Federal district courts” do not have jurisdiction . . . over challenges to state court 5 decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that 6 || the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in [the 7 United States Supreme Court.”); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); 8 Mothershed v. Justices, 410 F.3d 602, 606 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Under Rooker—Feldman, lower 9 federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions, and state 10 || court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari 11 in the Supreme Court of the United States.”). 12 To the extent that Petitioner is seeking to file a federal action challenging his state court 5 13 criminal conviction, he must file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district where his 14 conviction was obtained, as California federal courts traditionally have chosen to hear habeas 3 15 petitions challenging a state conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or sentencing. See 16 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. 3 17 Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Petitioner’s district of conviction is the Central 18 District of California. See Kirkpartick v. Chappell, 950 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2020) (crime 19 committed in Burbank, California). Accordingly, any challenges to his conviction should be filed 20 || in the Central District of California. 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 5, 2025 . .

2° JON S. TIGAR 6 ited States District Judge 27 28