Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00543/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00543-1/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

27

28

1

 “As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997).

The district court, however, does retain jurisdiction to adjudicate post-judgment matters such as

post-judgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 402-03 (1995).

-1- 11cv0543

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv0543 H (JMA)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

TERRI GONZALES, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

On March, 17, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. On April 25, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the request to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissing the petition because Petitioner had not satisfied the jurisdictional “in

custody” requirement. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order.

(ECF No. 5.) On the same day, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 7.)1

 Petitioner

then filed a supplemental request for reconsideration on July 15, 2011. (ECF. No. 9.) On July

19, 2011, this Court denied Petitioner’s motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration.

(ECF No. 10.) On August 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a request for issuance of certificate of

Case 3:11-cv-00543-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/29/11 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

-2- 11cv0543

appealability. (ECF No. 12.)

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The issue becomes

somewhat more complicated where the district court dismisses the petition based on procedural

grounds. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000). “When the district court denies

a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying

constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Id.

The Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could

disagree” with this Court’s conclusion that he is not “in custody” as required under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. As discussed in this Court’s April 25, 2011 Order, “Subject matter jurisdiction under

the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), is limited to those persons ‘in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State.’” Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It is a jurisdictional requirement that, at the time a habeas petition

is filed, “the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack.”

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a)); see

Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the 8 year

sentence he received in 1985, which Petitioner acknowledges has “expired.” (See Pet. at 2.)

Petitioner challenged his 1985 conviction in state court on both direct and collateral review and

was unsuccessful. (See e.g. Pet. Exs. 1 and 2.) 

Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing” that the conviction he challenges falls

under any exception to the custody requirement. As discussed in this Court’s Order denying

Case 3:11-cv-00543-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/29/11 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

2

 The Court notes that Petitioner has pending in this Court, a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging his 2007 conviction, the sentence for which was enhanced based, in part, on his 1985 prior

conviction. See Daughtery v. Gonzales, 11cv0545 BTM (BSG) (ECF No. 1).

-3- 11cv0543

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, a petitioner is not “‘in custody’ under a conviction after

the sentence imposed for it has fully expired” but later used to enhance a sentence imposed for

a subsequent conviction.2 Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Further, in Lackawanna, the Supreme Court

held that a habeas petitioner may not collaterally challenge a prior conviction which is “no

longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right,” unless “there was a failure to appoint

counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment [and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335

(1963)].” Lackawanna Co. Dist. Atty. v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001). Here, Petitioner alleges

his 1985 guilty plea was unknowing and intelligent and that defense counsel was ineffective.

Thus, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claims fall under the

Lackawanna exception. Id.

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in this Court’s previous Orders,

Petitioner’s request for certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2011 _________________________________________ Marilyn L. Huff

 United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00543-H-JMA Document 13 Filed 08/29/11 Page 3 of 3