IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 12, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,
VIRGILIO MELGOZA, JR., DEFENDANT/PETITIONER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER RE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED AUGUST 2, 2010
On August 2, 2010, Petitioner Virgilio Melgoza, Jr., proceeding in pro per, sent a letter to the Court requesting assistance in connection with a state hold which is preventing his release from a federal prison to a half-way house for completion of his federal sentence. Petitioner asserts that the hold was issued by the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. DF007764A, "which I [undecipherable] your Courts [sic] used & charged me with to Federal Prison." Petitioner pleaded guilty in this Court to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 60 months. Petitioner is presently confined at FCI Schuykill in Minersville, Pennsylvania.
Case No. DF007764A was filed against Petitioner in the Kern County Superior Court on May 9, 2006, Petitioner having been arrested on May 5, 2006. Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled substance for sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11378, and two counts of failure to appear on a felony charge in violation of California Penal Code § 1320(b). These charges have not been resolved.*fn1
If Petitioner intends to challenge the effect of the state detainer/hold on the execution of his federal sentence, Petitioner may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the district in which Petitioner is presently incarcerated, naming as the respondent the warden of FCI Schuykill. If Petitioner intends to challenge his future confinement in state custody by challenging the lawfulness of the state detainer, Petitioner may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Section 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, because Petitioner is deemed to be in the custody of the state officials lodging the detainer. See Graham v. Brooks, 342 F.Supp.2d 256, 261 (D.Del.2004); Campbell v. Kelly, 2009 WL 260795 at *2 (M.D.Pa.2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.