Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02857/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02857-0/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)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CARL LAWRENCE, Civil No. 12-2857 LAB (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

and 

(2) DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

ROBERT TRIMBLE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he

is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

/ / /

S:\Burns\orders\12cv2857-IFPGrant-Dismiss.wpd, 121812 -1- 12cv2857

Case 3:12-cv-02857-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3
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

FAILURE TO RAISE COGNIZABLE CLAIM

The Petition must be dismissed, however, because in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules

governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim on federal habeas. Title

28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for federal habeas

corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district

court shall entertain an application for a 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) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

The Ninth Circuit has specifically held that the federal habeas statute does not provide

jurisdiction over a claimchallenging a restitution order, even when the petitioner is incarcerated.

Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Petitioner challenges only the amount

of restitution imposed as a part of his sentence. In no way does Petitioner claim 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 allege that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, nor does he

challenge the duration of his confinement. He merely seeks to have the amount of restitution and

fines imposed as part of his sentence, reduced. (See Pet. at 6-7.) 

As such, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under § 2254(a) because success on the

claims might cause the restitution fine to be set aside but would not affect any restraint on his

liberty. See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980-81 (the “elimination or alteration of a money judgment,

does not directly impact—and is not directed at the source of the restraint on—[a petitioner’s]

liberty” as long as he has to serve the rest of his prison sentence in the same manner). Therefore,

/ / /

S:\Burns\orders\12cv2857-IFPGrant-Dismiss.wpd, 121812 -2- 12cv2857

Case 3:12-cv-02857-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 3
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

this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's challenge to the restitution order imposed

by the state trial court and the Petition is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim

on federal habeas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

S:\Burns\orders\12cv2857-IFPGrant-Dismiss.wpd, 121812 -3- 12cv2857

Case 3:12-cv-02857-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 3