Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05291/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05291-1/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

LARRY L. RUSSELL,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05291-JCS (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

ORDER DISMISSING THE

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

INTRODUCTION

This federal habeas corpus action was dismissed because petitioner failed to comply 

with the Court’s order to perfect his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or 

pay the filing fee. Petitioner since has perfected his IFP application. Accordingly, the 

action is REOPENED, and the Clerk is directed to amend the docket accordingly. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions.1 The petition for 

such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of 

 

1

Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Pet. at 7.) The magistrate judge, 

then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though respondents have not been served or 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th 

Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate’s action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had 

not been served yet and therefore were not parties). 

Case 3:14-cv-05291-JCS Document 8 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition on or before 

June 1, 2015.

BACKGROUND

In 2011, a Contra Costa Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of possessing 

cocaine base and hydrocodone for sale. He was sentenced to ten years in state prison. 

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for 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). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate 

only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 

patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges (1) “stay error 

enhancements”; and (2) “imposing an award of attorney’s fees.” Claim 1 may not be 

cognizable. First, it is not clear what petitioner means in the first claim. The state 

appellate court addressed petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred by staying, rather than 

striking, various sentencing enhancements. People v. Russell, No. A134501, 2013 WL 

1080299, *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2013) (unpublished).) If this is what petitioner means 

by Claim 1, he must clearly state this. 

Second, this Court may lack jurisdiction over this claim, if the federal claim is the 

same as the one addressed in state court. The state appellate court granted petitioner’s 

request to modify the judgment to strike the enhancements. Consequently, there is no 

relief that this Court can give. In his amended petition, petitioner must address this issue. 

Case 3:14-cv-05291-JCS Document 8 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Claim 2 is DISMISSED with prejudice as not cognizable. First, federal habeas 

relief is not warranted here because success on this claim would not result in a voiding of 

the verdict or a reduced sentence. Habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for a state 

prisoner who challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or 

speedier release.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). The federal writ of 

habeas corpus is available only to persons “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). In 

general, custody is satisfied where the sentence imposed “significantly restrain[s] [a] 

petitioner’s liberty to do those things which in this country free men are entitled to do.” 

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243 (1963). A monetary fine, such as having to pay 

attorney’s fees, is not a sufficiently significant restraint on liberty to satisfy the custody 

requirement. See Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Second, petitioner’s challenge to his detention does not suffice to confer jurisdiction 

on this Court to review his attorney’s fees claim by way of a federal habeas petition. See 

United States v. Thiele, 314 F.3d 399, 401-02 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding petitioner could not 

collaterally attack restitution order under § 2255, even where joined with cognizable 

claims for release from custody). 

Based on the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. On 

or before June 1, 2015, petitioner shall file an amended petition in which he addresses 

the deficiencies discussed above. The amended petition must include the caption and 

civil case number used in this order (14-5291 JCS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION on the first page. Because an amended petition completely replaces the 

previous petition, petitioner must include in his amended petition all the claims he wishes 

to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not 

incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. Failure to file an amended 

petition in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further 

notice to petitioner. 

Case 3:14-cv-05291-JCS Document 8 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Eric Arnold, the warden of the

prison in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. Petitioner 

erroneously named many persons as respondents. Arnold is the sole proper respondent in 

this action, as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over petitioner, the only person 

who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015

_________________________

 JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05291-JCS Document 8 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

LARRY L. RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05291-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 4/27/2015, 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.

Larry L. Russell ID: AR8643

California State Prison-Solano

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 

Dated: 4/27/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 3:14-cv-05291-JCS Document 8 Filed 04/27/15 Page 5 of 5