Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00373/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00373-0/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)

---

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

1

 The following summary is based on state court records lodged in this action. As explained

below, the lodged documents in this case are confusing, possibly in error, and conflicting.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0373 FCD DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL, et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges both his conviction on a

charge of littering and the finding that he violated his previously imposed term of probation. He

raises four claims for relief.

BACKGROUND1

On July 14, 2000, a first amended complaint in case No. 00-2048 was filed in

Yolo County Superior Court charging petitioner with littering on public or private property in

violation of California Penal Code § 374.4(a), an infraction. (Answer, Ex. A at 13.) That same

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 7
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

day, a court trial was held in that case and also in case No. 97-3363, which involved petitioner’s

alleged violation of probation. (Answer, Ex. B at 5; Ex. C at 14, 15.) After hearing testimony,

the trial court found petitioner guilty of littering and of violating the terms of his probation. 

(Answer, Ex. B at 5; Ex. C at 32.) On August 18, 2000, petitioner was sentenced to 10 days in

the county jail or a jail release/work program, to commence on November 15, 2000. (Answer,

Ex. A at 30.) On that same date, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Id. at 18.) On June 14,

2001, the Appellate Department of the Yolo County Superior Court issued a decision affirming

the judgment of conviction and on September 25, 2001, a remittitur issued. (Id. at 41-43.) 

On September 26, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court. (Answer, Ex. D.) The Supreme Court denied the petition on January

29, 2002, citing In re Waltreus, 62 Cal. 2d 218, 225 (1965) and In re Lindley, 29 Cal. 2d 709, 723

(1947). (Id.) 

On February 19, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

court. By order dated March 5, 2002, that petition was dismissed with leave to amend on the

grounds that: (1) petitioner had failed to allege with particularity facts demonstrating he was “in

custody” pursuant to the state court convictions at issue in this action when he filed his petition;

and (2) petitioner had named the wrong respondent. On May 13, 2002, petitioner filed an

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. On June 25, 2002, respondents were directed to file

an answer to the petition. On October 23, 2002, respondents filed an answer and on November

4, 2002, petitioner filed a traverse. 

JURISDICTION

A writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available only to a person

“in custody” pursuant to the judgment of a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The United

States Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as requiring the habeas petitioner to be “‘in

custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng

v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (per curiam) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 7
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

 Although petitioner’s argument in this regard is entitled “US Court of Appeals has

Jurisdiction,” this court assumes petitioner is referring to federal courts in general, including this

court. (See P&A at 22.)

3

238 (1968)). "[O]nce the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the

collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual 'in

custody' for the purposes of a habeas attack on it." Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Put another way,

"collateral consequences preclude mootness, but do not satisfy the 'in custody' requirement." 

Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining the effect of the Maleng

holding on the “in custody” requirement). “[T]he ‘in custody’ requirement is jurisdictional.” 

Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490). 

Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition if the petitioner is not

in custody at the time the petition is filed. Maleng, 490 U.S. 488 at 490-91; De Long v.

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Actual physical custody is not required in every action brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491; Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S.

294, 300-01 (1984); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 348, 351 (1973). However, a

petitioner’s claims are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding only if the petitioner is

either incarcerated as a result of the conviction at issue or is subject to relatively certain, if not

imminent, incarceration based on the conviction being challenged. See Hensley, 411 U.S. at

351-52 (noting that the “in custody” requirement demands more than a “speculative possibility”

of incarceration). In other words, some form of objective restraint on liberty is required to

invoke the remedy. See Advisory Committee Note, 1976 Adoption, Rule 1, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner asserts that the federal courts have jurisdiction to review the instant

petition because he satisfied the “in custody” requirement of the federal habeas statute at the time

this action was filed on February 19, 2002. (Brief attached to Pet. (hereinafter P&A) at 22-24.)2

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

On the face page of his May 13, 2002 petition, petitioner represents that he served four days of a

fourteen-day sentence and that the remaining ten days were stayed pending his appeal. 

Petitioner argues that he is in “constructive custody” because his sentence on the conviction was

stayed pending appeal and is still stayed “pending Writ, constituting constructive custody.” 

(P&A at 22.) Petitioner represents that he will be required to serve 10 days in jail if his

conviction is not overturned. (Id.) Petitioner also argues that this court has jurisdiction over his

claims because this case has “collateral consequences” and is “capable of repetition, yet evading

review.” (Id. at 22, 24.) Specifically, he informs the court that he has been convicted of several

violations of the law in his attempts to keep sidewalks in the City of Davis safe by moving

recyclable waste from the sidewalks to the streets. He represents that his attempts to force Davis

authorities to keep the sidewalks clear of recyclable waste has been successful in that the

authorities are now enforcing laws prohibiting the placement of waste on the sidewalks. 

However, he argues that if “justice is not upheld” by the granting of his writ the situation might

deteriorate resulting in further protest on his part and the imposition of additional convictions. 

The state court record lodged in this court does not necessarily support

petitioner’s factual assertions with respect to his sentence and may even contradict those

assertions. In one document contained in the lodged record, it appears that only a fine was

imposed against petitioner. (Answer, Ex. B at 6.) In another document, petitioner’s appellate

counsel informed the Yolo County Superior Court in a document entitled “request for stay of jail

time” that petitioner “was ordered to serve 10 days in the county jail or other jail release/work

program commencing November 15, 2000.” (Answer, Ex. A at 30.) However, there are no

underlying lodged state court records supporting this description of petitioner’s sentence. 

Finally, as described above, in the petition filed in this court petitioner states that he received a

sentence of 14 days in jail. 

It appears that petitioner requested a stay of his sentence pending appeal in the

California Supreme Court. (Answer, Ex. A at 32.) However, minute orders appearing as part of

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 4 of 7
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

3

 The court notes that, even if this is true, petitioner would not have been subject to this six

month jail term at the time the original petition was filed in this matter on February 19, 2002.

5

the state court record lodged in this court reflect both that this request was granted and that the

request was denied. (Answer, Ex. B at 19, 22, 26.) The California Supreme Court denied

petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 29, 2002. (Answer, Ex. D.) 

Accordingly, it would appear that petitioner could have already served his stayed sentence by the

time this action was filed on February 19, 2002. Finally, even if petitioner received a stay of his

sentence pending state appellate review, as he states, there is no indication in the record that

petitioner’s sentence was stayed pending review in the federal courts. 

Respondents agree that this court has jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims, but for

a different reason. (Answer at 17-18.) Respondents state that petitioner was “in custody” at the

time the amended petition in this matter was filed on May 13, 2002, because “the record

indicates” that on April 16, 2002, petitioner was ordered to serve six months in the county jail in

connection with this matter. (Id. at 17.)3 Indeed, minute orders lodged as part of the record

before this court reflect that on April 16, 2002 and/or on April 23, 2002, petitioner was sentenced

to six months in County Jail in case No. 00-2048. (Answer, Ex. B at 29, 30.) However,

petitioner disputes this, asserting that the trial court imposed the six month jail sentence based

upon a violation of probation in another case and not in this case. (Traverse at 4.) Petitioner

explains that “blatant inaccuracies have occurred in the minute orders of this case.” (Id.) 

On the state of the lodged record, it is impossible to determine whether

jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims exists in this court. Because of the jurisdictional nature of

the “in custody” requirement, the parties will be directed to file further briefing directed to the

question whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In this regard, the

parties are requested to explain and document with particularity facts demonstrating whether

petitioner was “in custody” pursuant to the state court convictions at issue in this action when he

filed his petition on February 19, 2002. In doing so, the parties must provide evidence of the

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 5 of 7
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

4

 The parties are advised that there are other deficiencies in the state court record lodged with

this court as well. For instance, the lodged record reflects a conflict as to whether petitioner was

convicted of the infraction of “dumping” or the different infraction of “littering.” The reporter’s

transcript of the trial and the amended complaint filed against petitioner on the first day of trial,

indicate that petitioner was convicted of littering, in violation of California Penal Code § 374.4(a).

(See Answer, Ex. C.) However, all of the documents in the state court record indicate that petitioner

was charged with and/or convicted of dumping, a violation of California Penal Code § 374.3(a).

(See Answer, Ex. B.) To add to the confusion, while the Appellate Division of the Yolo County

Superior Court noted that petitioner was informed his court trial would involve “the littering

infraction,” the court proceeded to analyze petitioner’s claims as if he had been convicted, instead,

of the “dumping” infraction. (Answer, Ex. A at 42-43.) This confusion extends to the briefs filed

in this court. Although petitioner claims he was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code

§ 374.3(a) (dumping) and that there was insufficient evidence to support that conviction, respondents

answer that petitioner was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code § 374.4(a) (littering)

and that there was sufficient evidence to support that conviction. In the traverse, petitioner

continues to assert that he was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code § 374.3(a). Finally,

there is no documentation in the court file of the probation violation charge against petitioner, of

which he complains, or of petitioner’s arraignment. 

If this court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter, the record must be clarified

and/or augmented in order to allow a coherent analysis of petitioner’s claims. The court notes in

this regard that respondents are required to attach to their answer all parts of the transcript that

are considered relevant to petitioner’s claims. (Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases.) However, with respect to a writ of habeas corpus, “[t]he burden of proof at all times

remains with the Petitioner. Petitioner has requested the writ, and it is thus Petitioner's burden to

persuade this court that a state court reached a decision that was ‘contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.’” Williams v. Runnels, 312

F.Supp.2d 1266, 1273 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (citing Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 641 (2003) (citing

Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25 (2002) (per curiam)) (noting that the habeas corpus

petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the objectively unreasonable nature of the state

court decision in light of controlling Supreme Court authority). See also Wildman v. Johnson,

261 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[p]etitioner cannot meet his burden (of demonstrating that a

state court's application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable) by simply

convincing the federal court that he has the better of two reasonable legal arguments”). In

addition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 states that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court

shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption

of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 

6

specific sentence received by petitioner as a result of his conviction and/or probation revocation

in this case and must clarify if and when that sentence was served. Unsupported allegations will

not suffice.4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within forty-five days from the date

of this order, both parties shall file further briefing addressing whether this court has subject

matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims. If necessary, the parties shall expand the record with 

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

accurate records of the underlying state court proceedings in order to clarify petitioner’s “in

custody” status.

DATED: July 1, 2005.

DAD:8:sherm373.fb

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 07/05/05 Page 7 of 7