Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05247/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05247-0/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

No. C 15-5247 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 3/1/16*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

SAVAS JAMES LOUKEDIS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-5247 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY APRIL

11, 2016 WHY THE PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his 2006 state conviction for committing a

lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of fourteen. This is the second habeas action

petitioner has filed regarding this same conviction. The prior action, which was filed in

2014, was dismissed because petitioner failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause

why the action should not be dismissed. (Case No. 14-3797, Docket No. 6.) The instant

petition is subject to dismissal for the same reasons given in the order to show cause filed in

this prior action. 

In the prior petition, petitioner asserted that he was no longer in custody (neither

incarcerated nor on parole or probation) serving the term imposed for his 2006 conviction. 

(14-3797, Docket No. 1 at 2.) Currently, petitioner is housed at San Quentin State Prison,

though the Court does not know what state court judgment is the basis for the sentence he is

serving now. 

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

Case 3:15-cv-05247-RS Document 5 Filed 03/01/16 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 15-5247 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

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 2006

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

petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before April 11, 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 Nos. 2 and 4) is

GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 2 and 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05247-RS Document 5 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2