Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03910/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03910-1/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

No. C 16-03910 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 16-03910 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY

AUGUST 29, 2016 WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his 2007 state convictions for forced oral

copulation and felony false imprisonment. For these convictions, he received a sentence of 3

years and 8 months. Because it is nearly a decade after this sentence was imposed, it is

unlikely that petitioner is still in custody for these offenses. 

The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the time

the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,

238 (1968). This requirement is jurisdictional. Id. A petitioner who files a habeas petition

after he has fully served his sentence and who is not subject to court supervision is not “in

custody” for the purposes of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and his petition is

therefore properly denied. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990).

The custody requirement does not mandate that a prisoner be physically confined. 

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989). A petitioner who is on parole at the time of filing

is considered to be in custody, see Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 241–43 (1963) and 

Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990), as is a petitioner on probation, see

Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005). Custody is found where the

Case 3:16-cv-03910-RS Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 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

No. C 16-03910 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

sentence imposed significantly restrains petitioner’s liberty, see, e.g., Dow v. Circuit Court,

995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993) (sentence of mandatory attendance to fourteen-hour

alcohol abuse rehabilitation program sufficient to place petitioner in custody), but not where

only a fine is imposed, see Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th Cir. 1987) (sentence

which only imposes fine not enough to satisfy custody requirement even if petitioner faces

imprisonment for failure to pay). 

It appears petitioner is not in custody under the state court judgment for the 2007

convictions. If this is true, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition. 

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before August 29, 2016 why the

petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

No extensions of time will be granted. If petitioner fails to respond to this order to

show cause, the action will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

for failure to prosecute. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2)

is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Ronald Davis, Warden of San

Quentin State Prison, is the respondent. Petitioner erroneously named as respondent his

former defense attorney. Davis, not his attorney, is the proper respondent, 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)). If petitioner wishes to

pursue a federal suit against his former attorney, he may do so by filing a civil rights

complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03910-RS Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2