Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02191/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY B. NAB, No. CIV.S-06-2191 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE

BOARD,

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, initiated this

action by filing a document styled “petition for writ of habeas

corpus” on October 3, 2006. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff alleges in his pleading that defendant

Contractors State License Board revoked his building contractor’s

license in violation of his due process rights. Plaintiff seeks

reinstatement of his license and the return of all fines paid.

In his pleading, plaintiff lays out his position that

habeas corpus lies to address his claim because, in sum, he “has a

Case 2:06-cv-02191-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 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

 Among the cases cited by the Ninth Circuit in Williamson were 1

Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1987)(revocation of

medical license); Lillios v. New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.

1986)(fine and suspension of driver's license); Harts v. Indiana, 732

F.2d 95, 96-97 (7th Cir. 1984)(suspension of driver's license);

Ginsberg v. Abrams, 702 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1983)(revocation of

license to practice law and disqualification as real estate broker

and insurance agent); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th

Cir. 1970)(fine and revocation of driver's license).

2

Protected Liberty Interest in his right to hold a specific private

employment and to follow a chosen profession ....” (Pet. at 10.) 

Plaintiff’s position lacks merit. The undersigned recognizes, as

plaintiff maintains at some length, that actual physical custody is

not required in every habeas action. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,

490-91 (1989); Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294,

300-01 (1984). “In general,” however, “courts hold that the

imposition of a fine or the revocation of a license is merely a

collateral consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in

custody’ requirement” of a habeas action. Williamson v. Gregoire,

151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)(listing cases). “The precedents 1

that have found a restraint on liberty rely heavily on the notion of

a physical sense of liberty -- that is, whether the legal disability

in question somehow limits the putative habeas petitioner's

movement.” Williamson, 151 F.3d at 1183. Here, there is no

limitation on plaintiff’s movement. Habeas corpus jurisdiction

therefore does not lie.

On the other hand, plaintiff may not be without recourse. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s pleading is complaint alleging a

violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore,

Case 2:06-cv-02191-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 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

3

plaintiff will be given the opportunity to pay the appropriate filing

fee or make an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20)

days of the date of this order plaintiff shall pay the appropriate

filing fee for a civil complaint or submit an affidavit making the

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Clerk of the Court

is directed to send plaintiff an Application to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit along with a copy of this order. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely comply with the

terms of this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

DATED: November 13, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\nab2191.ifp.fee

Case 2:06-cv-02191-GEB-DAD Document 5 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3