Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01104/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01104-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Wade Patterson
Petitioner
State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY WADE PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1104 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Jeffrey Wade Patterson has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 to challenge a requirement that he register as a sex offender, claiming that the registration

requirement violates his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and

the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. He alleges that he pled no contest and was

convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1982 in Santa Clara County Municipal Court

and was given a suspended sentence of two years of informal probation and required to register

as a sex offender for two years. He allegedly completed that sentence in 1984. At the time he

filed this action, Patterson was in prison serving a sentence on a drug offense. During the

unrelated criminal case against him, he was informed that he once again must register as a sex

offender and must do so for the rest of his life under California Penal Code § 290. Patterson

does not allege that he failed to register or that he has been arrested or convicted for failing to

register. 

The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons "in custody" for the

conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c),

2254(a); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). This requirement is jurisdictional.

Case 3:07-cv-01104-SI Document 6 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See Carafas v. LaValle, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 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 Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. The custody requirement does not require that a prisoner

be physically confined. Id. at 491. Thus, for example, 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),

as is a petitioner on probation, see Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005), and

a petitioner released on his own recognizance, see Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon,

466 U.S. 294, 301-02 (1984) (pending retrial). Custody requires a significant restraint on the

petitioner's liberty. 

“[M]erely being subject to a sex offender registry requirement does not satisfy the ‘in

custody’ requirement after the original [sex offense] conviction has expired.” Zichko v. Idaho,

247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001); see also McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d 1246, 1247 (9th Cir.

1999) (Oregon sex offender registration law does not place sufficient restraints on convicts to

constitute custody); Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 1999) (California law

which requires convicted sex offenders to annually register with state authorities does not

constitute severe, immediate restraint on physical liberty sufficient to constitute custody). When,

on the other hand, a petitioner is incarcerated for failing to comply with a sex offender

registration statute, the petitioner is “in custody” for purposes of challenging an earlier, expired

sex offense conviction that was a necessary predicate to the failure-to-register charge. Zichko,

247 F.3d at 1019-20.

Here, Patterson was not in custody for the challenge he asserts at the time he filed this

action. The fact that Patterson is subject to a sex offender registration requirement does not

establish custody. Although he was in prison at the time he filed this action, that incarceration

did not satisfy the custody requirement for the present petition because the incarceration was for

a crime unrelated to the sex offender registration requirement. Patterson was in prison because

of drug offenses, not because he failed to register as a sex offender. His petition in Patterson v.

Mendoza-Powers , C 07-1580 SI, identified his current convictions as being for violations of

Case 3:07-cv-01104-SI Document 6 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

California Health & Safety Code §§ 11375(b) and 11378. Although Patterson alleges in the

present case that he was "re-sentenced" recently to register as a sex offender, it appears that he

simply was informed of the duty to register. If he wants to contend that part of his sentence in

his drug offense case was to register as a sex offender, he should assert that claim by amending

his petition in Case No. C 07-1580 SI to avoid running afoul of the rule prohibiting multiple

habeas petitions challenging a single sentence/conviction. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk shall

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01104-SI Document 6 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3