Automated Summary
Key Facts
Petitioner Yevgeniy Velentino Kostenko was arrested in March 2025 in California on an Oregon fugitive warrant and extradited in April 2025. He filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging the extradition but used a state court form, creating uncertainty about jurisdiction. The court determined federal habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2241 does not apply to extradition orders, which are not convictions or sentences. The court ordered petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by challenging the extradition process, considering the limited scope of such relief to whether the extradition documents are facially in order, the petitioner is charged with a crime, is the person named in the request, and is a fugitive.
- Whether the petitioner's challenge to the extradition becomes moot after he has been transferred to the demanding state (Oregon), as the legality of his detention by the asylum state (California) is no longer at issue.
- Whether the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to review the petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging an extradition order, given that the petitioner is not in custody under a conviction or sentence.
Holdings
- The court determined that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not provide jurisdiction because extradition orders are not criminal convictions or sentences. An order of extradition is not a conviction, and detention pending extradition is not a criminal sentence, as confirmed by Maleng v. Cook (1989) and Dominguez v. Kernan (2018).
- The court concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 also lacks jurisdiction because the petition does not challenge the narrow legal predicates for extradition. The Extradition Clause limits review to (1) whether extradition documents are facially valid, (2) whether the petitioner is charged in the demanding state, (3) whether the petitioner matches the named individual, and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. The petition does not contest these elements, and the grant of extradition by the asylum state is prima facie evidence of compliance with requirements (Gee v. State of Kan., 1990).
Remedies
- The court ordered the petitioner to show cause within seven days, explaining why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Failure to respond may result in the case being immediately closed with no further notice for lack of prosecution and noncompliance with court orders.
Legal Principles
The court applied principles of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2241, concluding that neither statute provides a basis for challenging an extradition order. It emphasized that extradition is governed by limited habeas review criteria under § 2241, including whether extradition documents are facially valid, the petitioner is charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the petitioner is a fugitive. The court also cited precedents like Michigan v. Doran and Barton v. Norrod to affirm that extradition challenges become moot once the petitioner is returned to the demanding state.
Precedent Name
- Barton v. Norrod
- Gee v. State of Kan.
- Maleng v. Cook
- Michigan v. Doran
Cited Statute
- Federal Habeas Corpus Act of 1866
- Habeas Corpus Act of 1966
Judge Name
Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge
Passage Text
- For these reasons, petitioner is ordered to show cause why his petition—if he intended to file it in federal rather than state court—should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ('If it plainly appears from the petition... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner'); see also L.R. 72-3.2 (summary dismissal of habeas petition authorized when 'it plainly appears from the face of the petition' that 'petitioner is not entitled to relief').
- The scope of habeas review under § 2241 in extradition proceedings is sharply limited to (1) whether the extradition documents are facially in order, (2) whether petitioner is charged with a crime in the demanding state, (3) whether petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition from the demanding state, and (4) whether petitioner is a fugitive. See id. at 289.
- To obtain relief under § 2254, petitioner must 'be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.' Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (cleaned up). But an order of extradition is not a criminal conviction, nor is detention pending extradition a criminal sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (conferring jurisdiction only over petitioners who are 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court'); Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2018) (confirming that § 2254 can provide only post-conviction relief).