Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01319-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY W. SPENCER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1319 FCD GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner filed

this action on June 30, 2005.

Petitioner challenges a December 28, 2003, prison disciplinary conviction for

leaving work without permission. As punishment, petitioner was confined to quarters for five

days. After reviewing the record, the court is concerned that it does not have jurisdiction to

consider petitioner’s habeas petition. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th

Cir. 2004) (court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction). 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01319-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/10/05 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

2

“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to

entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 109

S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). The “in custody”

requirement is jurisdictional, and “requir[es] that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the

conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-

491, 109 S. Ct. at 1925. This is because the writ of habeas corpus functions primarily to secure

immediate release from illegal physical custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.

Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973). 

The United States Supreme Court has “never held . . . that a habeas petitioner may

be ‘in custody’ under a conviction when the sentence imposed for that conviction has fully

expired at the time his petition is filed. Indeed, [the Supreme Court’s] decision in Carafas v.

LaVallee . . . strongly implied the contrary.” Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491, 109 S. Ct. at 1925. In

other words, “once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral

consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual ‘in custody’

for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492, 109 S. Ct. At 1926. 

When petitioner filed this action, he was no longer in custody as to the at-issue

disciplinary conviction. Petitioner was no longer serving any sentence or suffering from any

punishment related to the conviction when he filed this action. Therefore, the court does not

have jurisdiction to consider this action.

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

lack of jurisdiction.

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, petitioner may file written

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

Case 2:05-cv-01319-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/10/05 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

3

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner 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: 8/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

spen1319.157

 

Case 2:05-cv-01319-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 3