Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
Paul Rymalowicz
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on May 15, 2013. (Doc. 1). After conducting a preliminary 

screening of the petition, it appears that the Court lacks habeas jurisdiction because Petitioner does not 

challenge his underlying conviction or sentence, but instead challenges only the sentencing court’s 

order of restitution. For the reasons discussed below, such a claim fails to invoke the habeas 

jurisdiction of a federal court. 

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner was convicted of two count of committing lewd acts upon a child, a violation 

PAUL RYMALOWICZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00711-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 4
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

of California Penal Code § 288(a). (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner was sentenced to a term of twelve years 

on the first count and sixteen years on the second. (Id.). As part of the sentence, the court ordered 

Petitioner to pay a restitution fine of $6,400, pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 1202.4, which provides for 

the imposition of a restitution fine of up to $10,000 by the sentencing court whenever a criminal 

defendant is convicted of a crime in the State of California. (Id.). The instant petition raises a single

claim, i.e., that by failing to conduct a hearing on Petitioner’s ability to pay prior to imposing the 

restitution fine, the state court violated Petitioner’s right to a trial by jury and to proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt . Such a claim, however, fails to invoke the Court’s habeas jurisdiction because it 

does not satisfy the “in custody” requirement of federal habeas law. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), “[t]he Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a 

district court shall entertain an application for a 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.” (Emphasis supplied). The “in custody” 

requirement is jurisdiction for a federal habeas court. Baily v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). 

In Baily, the Ninth Circuit observed that the “in custody” requirement of federal habeas law has two 

aspects. First, the petitioner must be “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his 

petition is filed.” Baily, 599 F.3d at 978-979, quoting Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 956 (9th

Cir. 2005). For this aspect of “in custody,” actual physical custody is not indispensable to confer 

jurisdiction; rather, the court will have habeas jurisdiction if a sufficient “restraint on liberty,” as 

opposed to a mere “collateral consequence of a conviction,” exists. Id. at 979. In this case, because 

Petitioner was in physical custody of Respondent at the time he filed the instant petition, and has 

remained in the physical custody of Respondent throughout these proceedings, this first aspect of the 

“in custody” requirement is not at issue.

The second aspect of “in custody,” however, is fatal to Petitioner’s habeas claim:

The plain meaning of the test of § 2254(a) makes clear that physical custody alone is 

insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Section 2254(a)’s language permitting a habeas petition to 

be entertained ‘only on the ground that [the petition] is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” explicitly requires a nexus between the 

petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody. 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Giving the crucial statutory phrase within § 2254(a) its ordinary, natural meaning, we cannot 

but conclude that to sustain his habeas challenge, [petitioner] must show that his custody in 

itself, or its conditions, offends federal law. It is not enough for [petitioner] to say, in 

substance, my custody is okay and consistent with federal law, but I should not be burdened by 

this restitution requirement. What [petitioner] is required to pay in restitution is not by 

ordinary meaning a part of his custody.

Baily, 599 F.3d at 980. (Citations omitted). 

In Baily, the petitioner, as in this case, challenged only his restitution fine. After the above 

discussion, the Ninth Circuit flatly rejected habeas jurisdiction under such circumstances:

[Petitioner’s] challenge to the restitution order lacks any nexus, as required by the plain test of 

§ 2254(a), to his custody. While [petitioner’s] liberty has been severely restrained by his 

conviction and custodial sentence, the remedy that [petitioner] seeks, the elimination or 

alteration of a money judgment, does not directly impact–and is not directed at the source of 

the restraint on–his liberty. If successful, [petitioner] could reduce his liability for restitution 

but would still have to serve the rest of his custodial sentence in the same manner; his remedy 

would affect only the fact or quantity of the restitution that he has to pay to the victim. 

[Petitioner’s] argument is only that he has been ordered to pay restitution “in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and not that his 

custody is unlawful. That he is in physical custody while attacking the restitution order is 

insufficient to confer jurisdiction over his habeas petition.

Baily, 599 F.3d at 981. 

The instant petition does not challenge any aspect of Petitioner’s felony convictions in the 

Kings County Superior Court. Nor does Petitioner challenge the length of the sentences imposed for 

those convictions. Rather, Petitioner’s only complaint is the legality and amount of the restitution 

amount that was imposed. While Petitioner was clearly in the physical custody of Respondent at the 

commencement of these proceedings, and while he remains in custody of Respondent at this time, 

such physical custody is insufficient to confer habeas jurisdiction for the restitution challenge 

contained in the instant petition. Id. In the absence of any substantive challenge to Petitioner’s 

conviction and sentence, the required nexus between the petition’s sole claim and the unlawfulness of 

Petitioner’s custody is absent. Id. Accordingly, without habeas jurisdiction, the Court cannot proceed 

on those claims. Id. 

ORDER

The Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign this case to a United States 

District Judge. 

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/22/13 Page 3 of 4
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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of habeas 

corpus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, 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 (20) 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 ten 

(10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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 22, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/22/13 Page 4 of 4