Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04877/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04877-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY ALBERT LEWIS,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERICO L. ROCHA,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4877 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Roy Albert Lewis, a defendant in a criminal case now pending before this court, United

States v. Lewis, No. CR 05-638 SI, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus. He filed several

petitions in this action; the most recent one, filed on December 21, 2005 as docket # 7,

supersedes the earlier ones.

The petition must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner

specifically alleges that "[t]his petition does not bring a federal question." Petition, p. 2. The

alleged basis for the petition is Lewis' personal version of a "superior law," described in Exhibit

A to the petition. He has not shown this court has jurisdiction to enforce his personal version

of a "superior law." 

Even if this court did have subject matter jurisdiction, as might exist for example if the

petitioner was seeking a writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the petition must be dismissed because

the matters presented in it must be presented, if at all, as motions in the pending criminal case.

Liberally construed, the petition alleges these points: (1) there is no pending criminal case

Case 3:05-cv-04877-SI Document 11 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Lewis attached a letter from a deputy clerk in the Clerk's office, who wrote that, as of November

21, 2005, there was no record of a criminal case pending against Roy A. Lewis. The reported absence

of a case appears to have been due to the fact that the indictment against Lewis was originally filed

under seal. A public record search will not uncover the existence of a case in which the indictment is

under seal until the indictment is unsealed. The order unsealing the indictment in the criminal case was

stamped "filed" on November 17, 2005, but not entered into the docket until November 21, 2005. (See

docket entry for docket # 26.) Thus, it appears that the reported absence of a criminal case was because

the search was done earlier on the same day (November 21) the order unsealing the indictment was

entered. 

2

against him, (2) Lewis' detention by Federico Rocha (the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District)

is unlawful because he owes no debt to Rocha, and (3) Lewis owes nothing to the United States

because he has discharged his debt 

There is a criminal case pending against Lewis. This court takes judicial notice of the

existence of the criminal case pending against Roy Lewis and LeRoy Lewis, i.e., United States

v. Lewis, No. CR 05-638 SI.1 This disposes of Lewis' first contention.

Lewis is no longer in a federal detention facility but instead is out on pretrial supervised

release. Any challenge to the conditions of his release must be made in a motion in the criminal

case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145. This disposes of his second claim.

Lewis' third claim appears to be an effort to articulate a defense against the criminal

charges and must be raised in the pending criminal case and, if he is unsuccessful in asserting

the defense in the district court, must be raised by an appeal. Habeas is not a substitute for an

appeal. See Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354 (1994); Walker v. Chitty, 112 F. 2d 79 (9th Cir.

1940). Habeas relief is available for pretrial detainees, but only when exceptional circumstances

are present, such as speedy trial problems and some double jeopardy problems that cannot be

cured after the trial and conviction have occurred. No exceptional circumstances are present

here. 

Lewis filed a notice of intent to amend the petition but failed to identify the way in which

he wanted to amend the petition. Six weeks have passed since the notice of intent to amend and

Lewis has not filed an amended petition. He appears to have abandoned his plan to amend his

petition. The court will not wait any longer for the amended petition. 

Case 3:05-cv-04877-SI Document 11 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. This

action is dismissed without prejudice to Lewis asserting a challenge to the conditions of release

and asserting his defenses to the charges in the pending criminal case. The clerk shall close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/01/06 __________________ _____________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04877-SI Document 11 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3