Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00867/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00867-1/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

 1 Petitioner has previously filed a federal habeas action concerning the conviction at issue

in this case, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Gallegos v. State of Ariz., No.

01-0686-PHX-MHM (MS) (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2001). Petitioner appealed that dismissal, but

was denied a certificate of appealability. Id., doc.# 14. Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently

dismissed. Id., doc.# 15. On April 7, 2010, Petitioner filed another request for a certificate

of appealability in this case, which was denied on April 14, 2010. Id., doc.# 18. 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur Gallegos, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0867-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER 

On April 19, 2010, Petitioner Arthur Gallegos filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee.1

 (Doc.# 1.) In an Order

filed May 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the Petition with leave to amend to name the proper

respondent and to set forth facts to support that he was “in custody” with respect to the

conviction for which he sought federal habeas relief. (Doc.# 3.) Petitioner has filed a First

Amended Petition. (Doc.# 4.) Petitioner has also filed a motion for order to show cause.

(Doc.# 5.) The Court will deny the motion and dismiss the First Amended Petition and this

action for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 2:10-cv-00867-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012001/m0260071.pdf.

- 2 -

I. Background

On April 21, 1989, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to three counts of

vehicular manslaughter in Maricopa County Superior Court, case# CR88-05617 and was

sentenced to 10 years in prison followed by 5 years on probation. According to records

available on-line, Petitioner’s term of probation was terminated in 2001.2

 Petitioner states

that his probation was extended on June 1, 2000 for an additional three years. 

II. The “In Custody” Requirement of § 2254 

Federal habeas relief is available “only on the ground that [an inmate] is in custody

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

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted “the statutory language as requiring that

the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time

his petition is filed,” although he need not be physically confined to challenge a sentence on

habeas corpus. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989) (an expired conviction can never

satisfy the “in custody” requirement, even if it is used to enhance a subsequent sentence);

Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005) (petitioner was “in custody” while

he remained subject to probation under the conviction or sentence at the time he filed his

habeas petition); Fowler v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 421 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th

Cir. 2005). When a petition is on probation or parole, the proper respondents are his

probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the probation or parole agency or

state correctional agency. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996).

Petitioner seeks habeas relief as to his 1989 conviction for vehicular manslaughter.

In his First Amended Petition, Petitioner again fails to allege facts to support that he is, or

was when he filed this action, “in custody” with respect to the conviction for which he seeks

habeas relief. As discussed above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas relief as to a

conviction for which a petitioner is not, or was not at the time filed, in custody. In Ground

Case 2:10-cv-00867-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

Four of the First Amended Petition, Petitioner states that Probation Officer Patruno filed a

motion to extend Petitioner’s sentence in CR88-05617 for an additional three years on June

23, 2006. (Doc.# 4 at 9.) Under supporting facts, Petitioner states that his probation was

extended for an additional three years on June 1, 2000. (Id.) Even if both allegations are

accurate, Petitioner fails to allege facts to support that he was “in custody” in connection with

CR88-05617 on April 19, 2010, when he filed this case. 

Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support that he was “in custody” in connection

with CR88-05617, when he commenced this case. The Court will therefore dismiss the First

Amended Petition and this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural

ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

III. Motion for Order to Show Cause

As noted above, Petitioner has filed a motion for order to show cause. In his motion,

Petitioner appears to seek an order from this Court to require the Respondents to show cause

for failing to respond to a state petition for habeas corpus filed on August 9, 2000.

Petitioner’s motion will be denied. This case is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due

to Petitioner’s failure to establish that he is, or was when he filed this action, “in custody”

with respect to the conviction or sentence being challenged. Respondents’ alleged failure to

resolve Petitioner’s state habeas petition is not properly before this Court. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The First Amended Petition (doc.# 4) and this action are dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

(2) Petitioner’s motion for order to show cause is denied. (Doc.# 5.) 

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

/ / / 

Case 2:10-cv-00867-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

(4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 9th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00867-MHM--MHB Document 6 Filed 06/11/10 Page 4 of 4