Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03549/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03549-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CHARLES WANG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DAVID PULIDO, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 09-3549 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. He has paid the filing fee. The petition is directed to a revocation of probation.

Venue is proper in this district because the revocation occurred in Santa Clara

County, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

Case 4:09-cv-03549-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Analysis

Petitioner concedes that when he filed the petition he was not in custody serving the

revocation term. In consequence, he cannot use a federal habeas petition to challenge the

revocation. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (habeas petitioner must be

in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed). In

addition, the expiration of the revocation sentence moots the case. See Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 13 (1998).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily DISMISSED. See Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/19/10 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.09\WANG,C3549.DSM.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-03549-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2