Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03300/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03300-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL CAVNESS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

VICKI HENNESSEY, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-03300-RS (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY 

NOVEMBER 1, 2016 WHY THE 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

This federal habeas action was dismissed because petitioner failed to file an 

amended petition by the deadline. He since has filed an amended petition. Accordingly, 

the action is REOPENED. The Clerk shall modify the docket to reflect this. The 

judgment (Docket No. 5) and the order of dismissal (Docket No. 4) are VACATED. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his 1999 state conviction for dissuading a 

witness from testifying, a violation of California Penal Code § 136.1(A)(2). For this 

conviction, he received a sentence of 2 years. Because it is more than 17 years after this 

sentence was imposed, it is unlikely that petitioner is still in custody for this offense. 

The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the 

time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 

U.S. 234, 238 (1968). This requirement is jurisdictional. Id. A petitioner who files a 

habeas petition after he has fully served his sentence and who is not subject to court 

Case 3:16-cv-03300-RS Document 7 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

CASE NO. 16-cv-03300-RS

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 

supervision is not “in custody” for the purposes of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction 

and his petition is therefore properly denied. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 

1146 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The custody requirement does not mandate that a prisoner be physically confined. 

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989). A petitioner who is on parole at the time of 

filing is considered to be in custody, see Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 241–43 

(1963) and Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990), as is a petitioner on 

probation, see Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005). Custody is found 

where the sentence imposed significantly restrains petitioner’s liberty, see, e.g., Dow v. 

Circuit Court, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993) (sentence of mandatory attendance to 

fourteen-hour alcohol abuse rehabilitation program sufficient to place petitioner in 

custody), but not where only a fine is imposed, see Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (sentence which only imposes fine not enough to satisfy custody requirement 

even if petitioner faces imprisonment for failure to pay). 

It appears petitioner is not in custody under the state court judgment for the 1999 

conviction. If this is true, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition. 

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before November 1, 2016 why 

the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

No extensions of time will be granted. If petitioner fails to respond to this order to 

show cause, the action will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September ___, 2016

_________________________ 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Judge 

21

Case 3:16-cv-03300-RS Document 7 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2