Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00154/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00154-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON JASON HUTTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-00154 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Paul L. Gabbert, Esq.

On April 20, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On May 10, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner

argues that such ongoing restraints on and severe intrusions into personal liberty as requiring

Petitioner to personally appear at least annually at the law enforcement agency where he is required

to be fingerprinted, to disrobe and to be photographed in the nude satisfy the “custody” requirement

Case 1:07-cv-00154-LJO -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/25/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

of § 2254(a). He claims these additional circumstances are substantially different from those

addressed in Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9 Cir.1999); McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d th

1246 (9 Cir.1999) and Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9 Cir.1998). th th

Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. In Henry, the Ninth Circuit addressed certain

restrictions imposed by California law on convicted sex offenders. In particular, the Ninth Circuit

found that in-person annual registration with a law enforcement authority, including providing

address and background information, a photograph, and fingerprints, did not “constitute the type of

severe, immediate restraint on physical liberty necessary to render a petitioner ‘in custody’ for the

purposes of federal habeas corpus relief.” Henry, 164 F.3d at 1242. Petitioner’s additional

requirement of being photographed in the nude does not render Petitioner “in custody” for purposes

of § 2254(a). As stated by the Supreme Court in Jones v. Cunningham, “[i]t is not relevant that

conditions and restrictions such as these may be desirable and important parts of the rehabilitative

process; what matters is that they significantly restrain petitioner's liberty to do those things which in

this country free men are entitled to do.” 371 U.S. 236, 242-43 (1963). The requirement that

Petitioner show up, disrobe and be photographed does not significantly restrain his liberty. It is

“merely a collateral consequence of conviction” as a sex offender. Henry, 164 F.3d at 1242.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued April 20, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00154-LJO -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2