Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02493/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill Lockyer
Defendant
Dock McNeely
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

1

 In a declaration filed by counsel for petitioner on January 18, 2007, it appears that

counsel believes petitioner satisfies the “in custody” requirement because petitioner must register

as a sex offender under California law. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

rejected this argument. Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 1998). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOCK MCNEELY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2493 DFL KJM P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 and has paid the filing fee. In his application, petitioner asserts that he has served the

sentence for the conviction petitioner challenges. A writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 is only available to persons “in custody” pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because petitioner was not “in custody” when he filed this action, this action

must be dismissed.1

 See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed.

Case 2:06-cv-02493-RRB -KJM Document 5 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: January 24, 2007. 

1

mcne2493.frs

Case 2:06-cv-02493-RRB -KJM Document 5 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2