Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00387/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN BREWER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondents. /

No. C 06-387 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Kevin Brewer, an inmate currently at the Alameda County Jail, filed a pro se petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he alleges that the district court

erred in dismissing an earlier civil rights complaint he filed. He also has applied to proceed in

forma pauperis.

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:06-cv-00387-SI Document 7 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Brewer alleges in his habeas petition that this court wrongly denied an earlier civil rights

action he filed. He apparently is referring to Brewer v. Board of Prison Terms, No. C 05-176

SI, which was filed in January 2005 and dismissed in April 2005. The proper method for Brewer

to have challenged the order of dismissal and entry of judgment in that action was in an appeal

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not by filing another action in the district

court. The correctness of the decision in a civil rights action cannot be challenged by way of a

habeas petition, which is what Brewer is attempting to do. This court does not have jurisdiction

to entertain his habeas petition that asserts that a civil rights action was wrongly dismissed

because Brewer is not in custody pursuant to the dismissal of that action. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a). He may be in custody due to a parole revocation or due to a new criminal charge, but

most certainly is not in custody due to the dismissal of a civil rights action. 

The court will not construe the habeas petition to be a challenge to the parole revocation

decision that was the subject of Case No. C 05-176 SI because it is too late for such a petition.

Brewer was in the county jail when he filed Case No. C 05-176 SI, filed a change-of-address

notice in that case when he was released from custody, and filed the present habeas petition

when he was once again in the county jail. This activity indicates that Brewer completed the

parole violation sentence that was the basis for Case No. C 05-176 SI. A habeas challenge to

a parole violation sentence that has been fully served would be moot. See Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 13 (1998). 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. 

Brewer's in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has sufficient funds

available to pay the filing fee. Brewer must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later than June 2, 2006.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/28/04 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00387-SI Document 7 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 2