Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Harper
Petitioner
V. Zumpano
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HARPER,

Petitioner,

v.

V. ZUMPANO,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01038-BAM HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254.1 Petitioner complains that, following an appliance inspection, a correctional officer 

improperly confiscated his television and radio, claiming that they had been altered.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 

appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition 

for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:15-cv-01038-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 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

Cir. 1971). In this case, because Petitioner does not challenge that legality of his confinement or 

seek release from that confinement, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and dismissal is warranted.

"[A] district court shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a 

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody 

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). This 

"custody requirement" is the first consideration in determining whether a federal district court has 

jurisdiction to consider a § 2254 habeas petition. Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th

Cir. 1998). Analyzing the custody requirement occurs in two steps. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 

978 (9th Cir. 2010). The first inquiry is whether the petitioner is "a person in custody," that is, a 

person under sufficient liberty restraint. Id. at 979. Because he is presently confined in state prison, 

Petitioner satisfies the first step of the analysis.

The second statutory inquiry asks whether the petitioner "is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Id. Satisfying this step of the analysis 

"explicitly requires a nexus between the petitioner's claim and the unlawful nature of the custody." 

Id. at 980. Petitioner does not contend that his imprisonment violates federal law; rather, he 

contends that certain personal property was illegally confiscated by a correctional officer. When the 

requisite nexus between a petitioner's claim and his custody does not exist, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to address the claim in a § 2254 habeas proceeding. In Bailey, for example, the 

petitioner could not seek to eliminate or alter a restitution order that was imposed following his 

conviction since the requested remedy "d[id] not directly impact--and [was] not directed at--the 

source of the restraint on his liberty." 599 F.3d at 981. So too, Petitioner's request for return of his 

confiscated personal appliances (or other, alternative resolution of his property dispute with prison 

management) neither impacts nor is directed at the source of his incarceration.

Case 1:15-cv-01038-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 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

3

Because Petitioner's claim fails to satisfy the custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the

Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over it. As a result, the Court must dismiss the habeas petition.

Conclusion and Order

The Court hereby DISMISSES Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01038-BAM Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 3