Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01886/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01886-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW A CEJAS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1886 MCE KJM P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Although it appears that petitioner is able to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this

habeas action, the court finds that the underlying action is frivolous.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in Sacramento County Superior Court. In this

habeas petition, he challenges the imposition of a $25,000 restitution fine because the superior

court did not make a determination that he had the ability to pay such a fine. He also alleges that

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to establish petitioner’s inability to pay or otherwise to

challenge the imposition of the restitution fine. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01886-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 01/10/08 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

2

In Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1997), the Court of

Appeals held that a challenge to the fine or restitution portion of a sentence, even one which

includes incarceration, is not cognizable in a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, because the relief requested does not qualify as a right to be released, as required by the

statute. In Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1987), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit held that a habeas challenge to a fine only was not cognizable in federal court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as

frivolous.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 9, 2008. 

2

ceja1886.56

Case 2:07-cv-01886-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2