Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01762/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01762-0/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

16-CV-1762 JLS (KSC)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN F. MIRAMONTES,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-CV-1762 JLS (KSC)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, AND

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 1, 2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Pet., ECF No. 1), together with a request to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2). 

IFP MOTION

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which 

he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2), and allows Petitioner to prosecute the 

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs 

and without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01762-JLS-KSC Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1762 JLS (KSC)

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

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS

The Petition must be dismissed, however, because this Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Petitioner raises only one claim in the Petition: that the trial court improperly 

imposed a restitution fine without sufficient evidence of his ability to pay. (See Pet. 2–7, 

ECF No. 1.)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district 

court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

The requirement that a habeas petitioner be “in custody in violation of [federal law]” 

is “jurisdictional.” See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Williamson v. 

Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)’s 

requirement that a habeas petitioner be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 

or treaties of the United States” is jurisdictional). “The plain meaning of the text of 

§ 2254(a) makes clear that physical custody alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.” 

See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980. Rather, “[it] explicitly requires a nexus between the 

petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody.” See id. (citing Dickerson v. 

United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.3 (2000)). If the remedy sought is merely “the 

elimination or alteration” of a petitioner’s restitutionary obligation, then there is no such 

nexus between the habeas claim and the petitioner’s purportedly unlawful custody. See id. 

at 981; see also Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1350–51 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that 

a petitioner did not satisfy the “in custody” requirement because, even if he prevailed on 

his ineffective assistance claim, “the only possible benefit [would] be a lower payment to 

his victim”). In such a case, the action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 984.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01762-JLS-KSC Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1762 JLS (KSC)

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

Here, Petitioner’s only claim challenges the restitution order. (See generally Pet., 

ECF No. 1.) Even if Petitioner prevailed on this claim, he would not obtain early release 

from custody; instead, he would be entitled to only “the elimination or alteration of a money 

judgment.” See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 981. Thus, the “nexus” between these claims and

illegal custody is lacking. See id. Put differently, the legal theories on which his claim 

relies are irrelevant: the only relevant consideration is whether his claims would impair the 

validity of the custodial sentence. See id. at 978, 984 (affirming dismissal of ineffective 

assistance claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Washington, 564 F.3d at 1351. 

Because Petitioner’s claim does affect the legality of Petitioner’s confinement, this Court 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 984.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) 

and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition (ECF No. 1) for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01762-JLS-KSC Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3