Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00256/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00256-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Jamerson
Petitioner
State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

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

LARRY JAMERSON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0256 LKK KJM P

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because it did not appear that petitioner was in custody, that his state

remedies had been exhausted or that the petition, challenging a conviction from 1989, was

timely, the court directed petitioner to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. 

On June 8, 2007, petitioner filed a response, acknowledging that he could not

“legally show cause,” but noting that he had grounds for a civil rights action. Petitioner’s

pleading does not meet the requirements for a civil rights action and the court will decline to

consider it as such. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a writ of habeas corpus may be entertained by a federal

court only on the ground that the habeas petitioner is “in custody” in violation of the laws or

treaties of the United States. “Once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely

Case 2:07-cv-00256-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 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

2

expired, the collateral consequences of the conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an

individual ‘in custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S.

488, 492 (1989) (per curiam). Because plaintiff acknowledges he is no longer in custody as a

result of the 1989 conviction, the petition should be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed.

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, plaintiff may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 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: October 9, 2007. 

2

jame0256.56

Case 2:07-cv-00256-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2