Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00480/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00480-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

A previous habeas petition filed shortly before the instant petition was dismissed on the same

grounds. See Adams v. Miller, No. C 07-0480 MJJ (PR). It is unclear from the present petition

whether petitioner is challenging the same charges he challenged in the prior petition. If so, then the

instant petition would also be duplicative and successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\adams.dsm.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE LEE ADAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

MILLER,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0480 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 3 & 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave 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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court 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. 

In the petition, petitioner states that he is not in custody serving a sentence based on

the charges challenged in the petition, and that the charges were dismissed prior to trial.1

 See

Case 3:07-cv-00480-MJJ Document 6 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\adams.dsm.wpd 2

Petition at 2, 6. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons "in custody" at

the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391

U.S. 234, 238 (1968). This requirement is jurisdictional. See id. Moreover, a habeas

petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time the

petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (emphasis added). As

petitioner states he is not presently in custody pursuant to the charges he challenges, and

indeed that said charges were dismissed prior to a trial, he does not satisfy the custody

requirement for filing a federal habeas corpus petition.

Consequently, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. In light

of this dismissal, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. In light of petitioner’s

lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and as he has not

paid the filing fee, his motion to refund the filing fee is DENIED.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate docket numbers 2, 3, & 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00480-MJJ Document 6 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 2