Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04329/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Pfeiffer
Respondent
Howard Young
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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD YOUNG, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

C. PFEIFFER, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-04329-RS (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY 

DECEMBER 1, 2016 WHY THE 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his 1992 California state convictions for 

kidnapping and second degree burglary. He received a sentence of 3 years for the 

kidnapping conviction and a concurrent sentence of 16 months for the burglary conviction. 

Because it is more than 24 years after these sentences were imposed, it is unlikely that 

petitioner is still in custody for these offenses. If he is not, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

over this action. 

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, 

Case 3:16-cv-04329-RS Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

CASE NO. 16-cv-04329-RS

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 

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, see Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 241–43 

(1963) and Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990), as is a petitioner on 

probation, see 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 1992 

convictions. If he is not in such custody, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas 

petition. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before December 1, 

2016 why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

No extensions of time will be granted. 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. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October ___, 2016

_________________________ 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Judge 

11

Case 3:16-cv-04329-RS Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2