Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01399/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01399-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Wayne Paige
Petitioner
People of the 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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY WAYNE PAIGE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1399-TLN-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a county inmate proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. Under Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and 

summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court 

has reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 and, as explained below, it must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

This court may entertain a challenge to custody imposed pursuant to the judgment of a 

state court only on the ground that such custody violates “the Constitution or laws or treaties of 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For a federal court to have jurisdiction, petitioner must at 

the time he files his petition be in custody pursuant to the judgment of the state court. Maleng v. 

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); see also Carafas v. LaValle, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01399-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 09/24/15 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 

27 

28 

2

In this case, petitioner challenges a 1989 judgment of conviction, which became final in 

1990 after the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. See ECF No. 1. He was 

sentenced to a term in state prison as a result of that judgment, and was released from custody in 

November 1992. Id. Petitioner cannot challenge the 1989 judgment because he is no longer in 

custody as a result of that judgment. See Woodall v. Beauchamp, 450 F. App’x 655, 657 (9th Cir. 

2011) (habeas petitioner must be in custody as a result of the challenged conviction, not on 

unrelated charges). Because petitioner was not in custody pursuant to the judgment of conviction 

when he filed his petition, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

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)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: September 23, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01399-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 2