Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06285/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edmund Jerry Brown
Respondent
Dasarathi Raghunath
Petitioner

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

1

 Petitioner does not say why the expungement was so long after completion of

probation.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DASARATHI RAGHUNATH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

EDMUND JERRY BROWN, Attorney

General,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6285 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED 

This habeas petition was filed by a detainee at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy,

Arizona. The petition, which is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is directed to petitioner’s

criminal conviction in Santa Clara County, which is in this district. 

In the petition Raghunath alleges the following: The conviction being challenged was

entered in 1992 pursuant to petitioner’s plea of guilty to the felony of annoying a child, see

Cal. Penal Code § 647.6, and to the misdemeanor of indecent exposure, see Cal. Penal

Code § 314. Sentence was suspended and petitioner was placed on probation for three

years. In 2004, having successfully completed probation, the criminal record was

expunged.1

 Petitioner is now detained by ICE for deportation because of the conviction.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has addressed the issue of

whether a petitioner who is no longer “in custody” on the state sentence and is held for

deportation can attack the sentence by way of a habeas petition under Section 2254, like

this one, or perhaps by way of a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Resendez v.

Case 4:07-cv-06285-PJH Document 2 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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 In United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit reversed

the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis filed by an INS detainee and directed to an

expired federal conviction. Id. at 1011-12. The United States Supreme Court has specifically

said that coram nobis is an appropriate way to attack an expired federal conviction, United

States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 505 n.4 (1954), so the propriety of using it was not at issue

in Kwan. Coram nobis, however, is not applicable to state convictions such as petitioner’s.

See Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 513-15 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Yasui v. United

States, 772 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir.1985) ( “the writ of error coram nobis fills a void in the

availability of post-conviction remedies in federal criminal cases” ); Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d

577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir. 1955) (writ of error coram nobis can only issue to aid jurisdiction of court

in which conviction was had). The court thus will not sua sponte construe the petition as being

for coram nobis.

2

Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005). The court held that neither is permissible. Id. at

961. 

In view of Resendez, it appears that petitioner cannot maintain this federal habeas

action.2 He is ORDERED to show cause within thirty days of the date this order is entered

why this case should not be dismissed. If he fails to establish cause not to dismiss it, or if

he does not respond, this case will be dismissed and the file will be closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\RAGHUNATH6285.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-06285-PJH Document 2 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2