Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00841/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00841-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WILHELM,

Petitioner,

v.

J. A. LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00841-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION

ECF No. 4

Petitioner Steve Wilhelm is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed a first amended 

petition on June 13, 2019. ECF No. 4. The matter is before the court for preliminary review 

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to 

the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition 

unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 

918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). To 

pass screening, the petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal law”—

meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 

(2014). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially 

defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation 

omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-00841-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/07/20 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

Petitioner states only one claim in his habeas petition: that the trial court imposed an 

excessive fine, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when it ordered him to pay restitution. 

ECF No. 4 at 5. A habeas claim must have a nexus to the petitioner’s custody. See Bailey v. Hill, 

599 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (a “court shall entertain an application for 

a writ of habeas corpus . . . only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). This circuit has “repeatedly recognized 

that the imposition of a fine, by itself, is not sufficient to meet § 2254’s jurisdictional 

requirements.” See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010); Williamson v. Gregoire, 

151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he imposition of a fine . . . is merely a collateral 

consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ requirement” for habeas relief.). 

Here, petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction or the duration of his 

confinement.1 Because court-ordered restitution does not directly impact the petitioner’s liberty, 

there is no nexus, as required by the plain text of § 2254(a), to his custody. See Bailey, 599 F.3d 

at 981. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction.

Order

Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, we order petitioner to show cause 

why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

 

1 Even if petitioner were to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement in a habeas petition, 

the petition would likely fail to meet the statute of limitations. Petitioner was convicted of his 

crimes in 1999 and it does not appear that statutory or equitable tolling are applicable to his case. 

See ECF No. 4.

Case 1:19-cv-00841-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 2