Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01409/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01409-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNY M. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-01409-JCS (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REOPEN

Petitioner‟s motion to reopen1this federal habeas action (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED 

because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. 

Through this habeas action, petitioner sought to void his 1993 state conviction for 

forcible oral copulation for which he had received a sentence of ten years. In the order of 

dismissal, the Court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over his petition because he was no 

longer in custody for the 1993 offense, 25 years having passed since the 10-year sentence 

was imposed. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968) (“The federal habeas corpus 

statute requires that the applicant must be „in custody‟ when the application for habeas 

corpus is filed.”). 

 

1 This action was dismissed without prejudice and judgment entered in favor of 

respondent. Petitioner then filed a fourth amended petition (Dkt. No. 25), which the Court 

construes as containing a motion to reopen. 

Case 4:17-cv-01409-YGR Document 26 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In his motion to reopen, petitioner contends he is still in custody because the 1993 

conviction was used to increase the sentence he is currently serving, which was imposed 

for another crime. 

This is insufficient. Petitioner is not in custody for his 1993 conviction. Rather, 

petitioner is in custody for a later conviction, the sentence for which was increased because 

of the 1993 conviction. This is easily demonstrated. If his later conviction were voided, 

his sentence for that conviction, enhancements and all, would be voided as well. He could 

not be held on the 1993 conviction, the sentence for which expired over two decades ago. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2017

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-01409-YGR Document 26 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNY M. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-01409-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 23, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kenny M. Brown ID: V22473

CMC-East Facility (Cell # 5134)

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101 

Dated: August 23, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 4:17-cv-01409-YGR Document 26 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 3