Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05684/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05684-0/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF LYNCH,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-05684-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal habeas petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner 

challenges a 1985 state conviction for which he received a sentence of two years. Because 

it is more than 34 years after this sentence was imposed, petitioner cannot be in custody for 

the 1985 conviction. Because he is not in custody on the conviction he challenges, the 

Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only 

available to persons “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). This requirement is 

jurisdictional. Id. 

This same 1985 conviction was used to enhance the 2005 state convictions that are 

the cause of petitioner’s current imprisonment. Petitioner challenged the 1985 conviction 

as part of the habeas petition he filed against his 2005 convictions. (Moore v. Hedgpeth, 

09-cv-01634-RS.)1 This provides an additional reason for dismissal. By attempting to 

invalidate his 1985 conviction, petition is thereby yet again challenging his 2005 

 

1 This 2009 federal habeas petition was denied. (Moore v. Hedgpeth, 09-cv-01634, Dkt. 

No. 55.) Petitioner’s appeal was unsuccessful. (Dkt. No. 64.) 

In 2015, petitioner filed another habeas suit against his 2005 convictions, after obtaining a 

new judgment from the state court, which denied his petition for resentencing under new 

state laws. (Moore v. Macomber, 15-cv-04269-RS.) The 2015 petition was dismissed 

because the claims were untimely, procedurally defaulted, or not cognizable. (Id., Dkt. 

No. 19.) Petitioner’s appeal was terminated when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

denied his request for a certificate of appealability. (Id., Dkt. No. 29.) 

Case 3:19-cv-05684-RS Document 5 Filed 09/17/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 19-cv-05684-RS

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

convictions and sentence. In order to file a second or successive petition, petitioner must 

obtain an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the 

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not shown that he has received 

such authorization. If the petition were not dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it would be 

dismissed as second or successive, the filing of which has not been authorized by the Court 

of Appeals. 

Any contention that he is in custody on the 1985 conviction because it was used to 

enhance the sentence he is currently serving is without merit. If his 2005 convictions were 

voided, his sentence for those convictions, enhancements and all, would be voided as well. 

He could not be held on the 1985 conviction, the sentence for which expired over three 

decades ago. 

It is unclear why petitioner has filed this habeas action now, as the state appellate 

court noted in its January 2019 denial of a state habeas suit petitioner filed. “[P]etitioner 

provides no record demonstrating that there is a pending criminal proceeding to which the 

motion [to the superior court to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the 1985 

conviction] could properly attach.” (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 42.)

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter 

judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September ___, 2019

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

16

Case 3:19-cv-05684-RS Document 5 Filed 09/17/19 Page 2 of 2