Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00349/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00349-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THORNTON, Civil No. 15-0349 WQH (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS and

(2) DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

R. FISHER, Warden,

Respondent.

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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 application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.

/ / /

-1- 15cv0349

Case 3:15-cv-00349-WQH-JMA Document 3 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 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

FAILURE TO SATISFY CUSTODY REQUIREMENT

Upon review of the documents filed in this case, it appears that Petitioner is no longer in

the custody of the State of California, for the conviction he challenges in the instant

petition. “Subject matter jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a), is limited to those persons ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State.’” 

Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It

is a jurisdictional requirement that, at the time a habeas petition is filed, “the habeas

petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack.” Maleng v.

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3)

& 2254(a)); see also Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)).

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the “in custody” language has not required

“actual” custody (i.e., that petitioner be physically confined when he challenges his

conviction on habeas corpus). For example, the Supreme Court has held that a petitioner

who was on parole when he filed his petition was in “constructive” custody sufficient to

satisfy the “in custody” requirement. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963).

Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction stemming from a February 22, 2014 parole

violation. On March 24, 2014 he was sentenced to 180 days. According to Petitioner,

the sentence was completed on August 24, 2014. (Pet. at 2.) Although Petitioner is

currently in state prison, has not alleged that he is currently in custody pursuant to the

conviction he seeks to challenge. “[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 attached upon

it.” Maleng, 290 U.S. at 492; see also Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir.

1990) (stating that an expired conviction cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirement). 

As such, Petitioner has not satisfied the custody requirement.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of

a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” Rule 4, 28

-2- 15cv0349

Case 3:15-cv-00349-WQH-JMA Document 3 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 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

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the facts alleged in the Petition that Petitioner

is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged he was in

actual or constructive custody of the State of California, under the conviction or sentence

under attack, when he filed his § 2254 Petition in this Court. Accordingly, the Court

dismisses the action.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED and the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to satisfy the

custody requirement. In order to have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First

Amended Petition, in which he alleges sufficient facts to show he was in custody at the

time the Petition was filed, no later than April 24, 2015. For Petitioner’s convenience,

the Clerk of Court shall attach to this order a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-3- 15cv0349

Case 3:15-cv-00349-WQH-JMA Document 3 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 3