Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00950-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Craig Wilson,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0950 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Dwight C. Ely, 

Judge of the Solano 

County Superior Court,

Respondent.

-oOoMay 13, 2005, petitioner, through counsel, paid the filing

fee and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus naming Bill

Lockyear as respondent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. June 3, 2005, the

court directed petitioner to file an amended petition naming the

proper custodian pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. June 8, 2005, petitioner filed an amended

petition naming Dwight C. Ely, Judge of the Solano County 

Superior Court as respondent.

August 5, 2005, the court found petitioner failed to comply

with the June 3, 2005, order and recommended this action be

dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-00950-JAM-TJB Document 11 Filed 11/30/05 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

2

Petitioner filed objections explaining he is on court

probation pursuant to California Penal Code § 1203(b), which

requires him to report directly to the court. No probation

officer is responsible for supervising or accounting for

petitioner. Cal. Pen. Code § 1203(b).

For this court to have jurisdiction petitioner must be in

custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-

91 (1989). At a minimum, petitioner must be “subject to

restraints not shared by the public generally.” Hensley v.

Municipal Court, San Jose Milpitas Judicial District, 411 U.S.

345, 351 (1973).

Since petitioner’s sentence has been suspended and he is not

under the supervision of a probation officer it is not clear his

liberty is so curtailed as to constitute custody for purposes of

the federal habeas statute. 

Accordingly, the August 5, 2005, findings and

recommendations are vacated and petitioner has 30 days from the

date this order is signed to explain how the conditions of his

probation may entitle him to federal habeas corpus relief.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00950-JAM-TJB Document 11 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2