Gonzales v. Thornton

1
25-cv-3814-AJB-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JORGE GONZALES,
Petitioner,
v.
KIMBERLY THORTON, Acting Warden,
High Desert State Prison,
Respondent.
Case No.: 25-cv-3814-AJB-VET
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
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.
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.
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
U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973).
Case 3:25-cv-03814-AJB-VET Document 2 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3814-AJB-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. 1 at 5) which is within
the jurisdictional boundaries the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28
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
that the proceeding took place in the Southern District of California. Thus, habeas
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
in the Southern District of California. Rather, it appears jurisdiction over this Petitioner
most appropriately lies in the Eastern District of California where Petitioner is confined
and 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
is the district where the prisoner is confined.”)
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03814-AJB-VET Document 2 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2