Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Archuleta
Petitioner
Oakland Superior Court
Respondent

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

SAMUEL ARCHULETA,

Petitioner,

v.

OAKLAND SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06432-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On October 22, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief 

from his 1987 state conviction for first degree burglary. Petitioner asserted that he is no longer in 

custody (neither incarcerated nor on parole or probation) serving the term imposed for his 1987 

conviction. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1. 

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, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990).

By order entered November 29, 2018, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why his 

habeas petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 10. Petitioner has filed a 

response. Dkt. No. 11. Petitioner does not assert, nor provide any evidence, that he satisfies the 

custody requirement. Rather, his response addresses the merits of his habeas claims and fails to 

address the issues of custody and jurisdiction. Therefore, he has failed to show cause why the 

petition should not be dismissed. 

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 12 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The order to show cause 

is DISCHARGED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/4/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 12 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 2