Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00266/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00266-1/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.10\Jennings266dis.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW G. JENNINGS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. MARTELL, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-0266 LHK (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES the petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

Case 5:10-cv-00266-LHK Document 12 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.10\Jennings266dis.wpd 2

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief Petitioner claims that: (1) his two restitution fines

imposed by the state court can no longer be enforced because the statute of limitation has run,

and (2) the restitution fines were imposed without regard to his ability to pay.

The federal habeas statute does not provide jurisdiction over a claim challenging a

restitution order, even when the petitioner is incarcerated. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th

Cir. 2010). In Bailey, the petitioner pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay restitution. He filed a

section 2254 petition alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to

the restitution order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition on the ground that

the petitioner did not meet section 2254’s “in custody” requirement for jurisdiction. Id. The

Ninth Circuit concluded that section 2254 does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s

in-custody challenge to the non-custodial portion of his criminal sentence, such as a restitution

order. Id. at 981. 

Here, Petitioner’s claims challenge only the restitution fines imposed. Petitioner does not

allege that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner does not claim that his custody or conviction is unlawful. 

Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s challenge to the restitution order

imposed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment and close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/11/10 LUCY H. KOH

 United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00266-LHK Document 12 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2