Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Archuleta
Petitioner
Oakland Superior Court
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL ARCHULETA,

Petitioner,

v.

OAKLAND SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06432-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION; GRANTING IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 6

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his 1987 state conviction for first degree 

burglary. Petitioner asserts that he is no longer in custody (neither incarcerated nor on parole or 

probation) serving the term imposed for his 1987 conviction. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Currently, 

petitioner is housed at Kern Valley State Prison, though the Court does not know what state court 

judgment forms the basis for the sentence he is serving now. 

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. A petitioner who files a habeas petition after he 

has fully served his sentence and who is not subject to court supervision is not “in custody” for the 

purposes of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and his petition is therefore properly denied. 

See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990).

The custody requirement does not mandate that a prisoner be physically confined. Maleng 

v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989). A petitioner who is on parole at the time of filing is 

considered to be in custody, as is a petitioner on probation. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 10 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 2
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

236, 241-43 (1963); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990); Chaker v. Crogan, 428 

F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005). Custody is found where the sentence imposed significantly 

restrains petitioner’s liberty, see, e.g., Dow v. Circuit Court, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(sentence of mandatory attendance to fourteen-hour alcohol abuse rehabilitation program 

sufficient to place petitioner in custody), but not where only a fine is imposed, see Dremann v. 

Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th Cir. 1987) (sentence which only imposes fine not enough to satisfy 

custody requirement even if petitioner faces imprisonment for failure to pay). 

It appears petitioner is not in custody under the state court judgment for the 1987 

conviction. If this is true, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition. Accordingly, 

petitioner is ordered to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of this order why the 

petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If petitioner fails to respond to this 

order to show cause, the action will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED. 

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. See 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel 

does not apply in habeas actions). Should the circumstances of the case materially change, the 

Court may reconsider petitioner’s request sua sponte.

The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. Nos. 2 and 6. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/29/2018

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 10 Filed 11/29/18 Page 2 of 2