Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01834-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Roderick Washington
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01834 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. 11]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 BACKGROUND

On June 28, 2006, a jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of misdemeanor exposing

his private parts in a public part in violation of California Penal Code section 314(1). (CT 107.) 

On July 27, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced to time already served. (Sentencing Transcript, at

173-174.) Petitioner is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code section

290. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate division of the Kings County Superior Court

pursuant to People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979), asking the court to review the record for

error. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner augmented the record with portions of the trial

transcripts. The appellate division affirmed the judgment. (Lodged Doc. No. 2.) 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01834-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court on July 30, 2007. 

(Lodged Doc. No. 3.) The petition was denied on October 10, 2007. (Lodged Doc. No. 4.) 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed several collateral actions in the state courts. (Lodged Doc. Nos. 5-6.) 1

On May 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state superior

court. (Lodged Doc. No. 7.) The petition was denied on July 12, 2007. (Lodged Doc. No. 8.) 

On July 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state appellate

court. (Lodged Doc. No. 9.) The petition was denied on August 10, 2007. (Lodged Doc. No.

10.) 

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state supreme court. 

(Lodged Doc. No. 11.) The court denied the petition on October 10, 2007. (Lodged Doc. No.

12.)

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 20, 2009. (Court

Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on April 19, 2010, and Petitioner filed an

opposition on April 28, 2010. (Court Docs. 11, 14.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer

if the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of

the state’s procedural rules. See e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir. 1990) th

(using Rule 4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White

v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9 Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review th

Respondent submits that Petitioner filed almost a dozen petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the superior

1

court, 141 petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state appellate court, and 150 petitions for writ of habeas corpus

in the California Supreme Court. Respondent examined the petitions in search of finding any that related to the

instant conviction and any relevance thereto. Respondent found that a large portion of the petitions were either

irrelevant or duplicative and only submitted those that were potentially relevant.

2

Case 1:09-cv-01834-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 4
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

motion to dismiss for state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12

(E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the court orders a

response, and the Court should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F.

Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.

In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to

state a cognizable claim 28 U.S.C. 2254. Therefore, the Court will review Respondent’s motion

to dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4. 

II. Lack of Jurisdiction-Custody Requirement

To obtain habeas corpus relief under section 2254(a), the prisoner must demonstrate that

he is “in custody.” The present custodial status requirement is jurisdictional and the prisoner

must be in custody at the time of filing in federal court. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490

(1989) (per curiam); Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9 Cir. 1998); Spencer v. th

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

In this instance, because Petitioner was sentenced to time served for his misdemeanor

conviction, and only stands required to register as a sex offender, he is not “in custody” within

the meaning of section 2254(a). Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-1242 (9 Cir. 1999) th

(being subject to California’s sex offender registration requirement not custody); Williams v.

Gregorie, 151 F.3d at 1182-1184. Although Petitioner is subject to a lifetime sex offender

registration requirement, that is insufficient to satisfy the custody requirement. There are no

other consequences that flow from his conviction, and because he received time-served he was

no longer “in custody” as a result of that conviction. Therefore, this Court does not have

jurisdiction to review the instant petition and it must be dismissed. 

III. Failure to State Cognizable Claim

Respondent further argues that the Petitioner’s challenge does not challenge the fact of

his custody. Rather, Petitioner claims that his conviction imposed an adverse condition not

related to his custody. In order to proceed under section 2254 the prisoner must allege that he is

“in custody” in violation of the Constitution or other federal laws. Bailey v. Hill, __ F.3d __,

2010 WL 1133435 *2 (9 Cir. March 25, 2010). In this case, Petitioner merely challenges the th

3

Case 1:09-cv-01834-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 4
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

noncustodial condition of the registration requirement which is not cognizable. Id., 2010 WL

1133435 * 4 (“That he is in physical custody while attacking the restitution order is insufficient

to confer jurisdiction over his habeas petition.”). 

RECOMMENDATION

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be

GRANTED; and

2. The instant petition be DISMISSED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty one (21) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01834-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/21/10 Page 4 of 4