Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03910/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03910-2/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD DAVIS, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-03910-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION 

The Court ordered petitioner to show cause why the action should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. He has failed to show such cause. Accordingly, this federal 

habeas corpus action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION 

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. If he is not in custody for the 

convictions he seeks to challenge, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition. 

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 dismissed. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 

Case 3:16-cv-03910-RS Document 14 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. 16-cv-03910-RS

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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). 

Petitioner has not shown that he is in custody for the convictions he challenges by 

way of his petition. Rather, his responses address the merits of his habeas claims. They 

entirely fail to address the issues of custody and jurisdiction. Therefore, he has failed to 

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

This federal habeas action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The order to 

show cause is DISCHARGED. 

Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 11) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall 

terminate Docket No. 11, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August ___, 2016

_________________________ 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Judge 

30

Case 3:16-cv-03910-RS Document 14 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2