Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04435-1/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)

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-4435 EMC (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Manuel Rodriguez commenced this action by filing a petition for a “writ of habeas corpus[,]

or in the alternative by writ of mandate, or a writ of coram nobis directing the Superior Court for the

County of Monterey to vacate and set aside the conviction” of petitioner. Docket # 1, p. 1. The

conviction under attack was a 1999 misdemeanor assault conviction from Monterey County Superior

Court or Monterey County Municipal Court. This Court issued an order explaining that neither a

writ of mandate nor a writ of error coram nobis was available to Petitioner and that his remedy, if

any, was a writ of habeas corpus. This Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the custody requirement, for untimeliness, and for

failure to exhaust state court remedies. This Court also ordered Petitioner to name a proper

respondent.

Petitioner filed a response in which he attempted to show that he met the custody

requirement. He stated that, due to the conviction, he cannot carry a firearm and that his inability to

carry a firearm disqualifies him from obtaining a job in his preferred field of law enforcement. 

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). 

The custody requirement is jurisdictional. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 238. Petitioner’s inability to

lawfully carry a firearm and his inability to obtain a particular kind of job are collateral

Case 3:12-cv-04435-EMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/13 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

consequences that do not satisfy the custody requirement for habeas corpus jurisdiction. 

See Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1987) (revocation of medical license based upon

petitioner’s conviction not satisfy custody requirement for petitioner who filed following

unconditional release from probationary period); see also Ginsberg v. Abrams, 702 F.2d 48, 49 (2d.

Cir. 1983) (where sentence of unconditional discharge entailed neither imprisonment, fine, nor

probation supervision, judge’s removal from bench, loss of right to practice law and disqualification

from licensure as agent insufficient to constitute custody); Harvey v. South Dakota, 526 F.2d 840,

841 (8th Cir. 1975) (inability to pursue certain professions, to possess firearms, and status of

recidivist if another crime committed do not amount to custody). Regardless of the existence of

serious collateral consequences stemming from petitioner’s conviction, the absence of custody at the

time of the filing of the petition means that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the

petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2005) 

The action must be dismissed. 

The action is dismissed for the separate and additional reason that the Court lacks personal

jurisdiction due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent. See Stanley v. California

Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

In light of the dismissal of the action for jurisdictional reasons, the Court does not reach the

non-jurisdictional problems of untimeliness and non-exhaustion of state court remedies.

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in

which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 _________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04435-EMC Document 5 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2