Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00202-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene E. Evans
Petitioner
For The People
Respondent

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 filed a federal habeas petition on February 10, 2020. (Doc. 1.) He challenges a 2000

conviction in Fresno County Superior Court of receiving stolen property for which he was sentenced 

to five years. (Doc. 1 at 3.) It appears Petitioner is no longer in custody for that conviction. Therefore, 

the Court will recommend that the petition be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

GENE E EVANS,

 Petitioner,

v.

FOR THE PEOPLE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00202-JLT (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION

[THIRTY DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:20-cv-00202-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 3
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

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Lack of Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the 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 

added.) Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the petitioner must 

demonstrate that he is “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 

(1998). If he is not “in custody,” the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Maleng v. 

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam); Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.

1998). In addition to the petitioner being in custody when the petition is filed, his claim must assert 

the right to be released. U.S. v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (as amended). In 

addition to incarceration, a person who is on parole or probation at the time he files his federal habeas 

petition satisfies the custody requirement. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240-43 (1963). 

Petitioner states he was sentenced to five years for his 2000 conviction for receiving stolen 

property. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Because his petition was not filed until February 10, 2020, it appears he has 

completed his sentence. In addition, he does not seek immediate release from custody. Therefore, it 

appears that he is not in custody and that the Court is without jurisdiction.

The Court notes that it appears Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of an indeterminate 

term of 301 years to life on a 2004 conviction for two counts of forcible oral copulation, one count of 

rape, one count of kidnap for rape, one count of penetration with a foreign object, and one count of 

carjacking. See Evans v. Yates, Case No. 1:09-cv-01857-AWI-GSA.1 Additionally, the California 

Supreme Court, in denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 22, 2020, noted cases 

indicating that Petitioner was no longer in custody on the challenged conviction. (Doc. 1 at 11.)

Accordingly, by all accounts, Petitioner is not in custody on the 2000 conviction for receiving stolen 

property, which is the conviction Petitioner challenges in the instant habeas petition. See Garlotte v. 

Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 45 (1995) (A prisoner not presently serving and challenging some part of a 

 

1 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980).

Case 1:20-cv-00202-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 3
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

consecutive series of sentences cannot file a habeas petition challenging another sentence that has been 

fully served or the conviction underlying that sentence.) 

II. ORDER

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to the case.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition 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. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

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

thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such 

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

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: February 21, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00202-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 3