Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02591/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

17cv2591 GPC (JMA)

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

MARTINEZ MARTY KELLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondent.

Case No. 17cv2591 GPC (JMA)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has also filed a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis which reflects that he has no funds in his trust account at the facility 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. The Clerk of the Court 

shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

However, the Court will sua sponte DISMISS this petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Federal courts may grant habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if the petitioner is in 

“custody” in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 

Case 3:17-cv-02591-GPC-JMA Document 4 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv2591 GPC (JMA)

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

U.S.C. § 2241; Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 

510 (1982); Stewart v. Downey, No. 13-2901 CW, 2013 WL 5423795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 27, 2013), aff'd (Mar. 12, 2014). The term “custody” refers to individuals who, as a 

result of a criminal conviction, are subject to “substantial restraints not shared by the 

public generally.” The requirement that an individual be in custody to be afforded habeas 

relief is jurisdictional. Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Petitioner in this case is not in custody. See Petition at 1 (listing personal residential

address). Plaintiff’s “identification number” (2018565600003701) appears to be the case 

number for an asset forfeiture case, not an identification number indicating that he is in 

custody.1 The fact that Plaintiff’s car may be in the government’s possession does not 

mean that Plaintiff himself is in custody. Accordingly, because Petitioner is not in 

“custody,” the Court will dismiss his petition for writ of habeas corpus for a lack of 

jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2018

 

1 To the extent that Petitioner seeks to challenge the seizure of his property, the Court directs Petitioner 

to forfeiture.gov. 

Case 3:17-cv-02591-GPC-JMA Document 4 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2