Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01197/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Alvarado
Petitioner
People of the State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01774 DMG (AS) Date March 31, 2015

Title David Alvarado v. People of the State of California

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL 

Page 1 of 2

Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge

Alma Felix N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

On March 11, 2015, Petitioner David Alvarado (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner 

proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ostensibly pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, but on a state-court habeas petition form.

1

 Petitioner is challenging his $2,200 restitution 

fine imposed pursuant to a 2004 attempted murder conviction. (Pet. 2.) However, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the Petition. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 empowers the Court to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . . on the ground that 

he is in custody in violation of the laws of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court does not have jurisdiction if “it appears from the application that the 

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Here, Petitioner’s sole claim for 

relief is that the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay when restitution was imposed. (Pet. 3.) 

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that because challenges to restitution fines do not allege that a 

person is wrongfully in custody, such challenges fail to confer habeas jurisdiction. See Bailey v. Hill, 

599 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (“§ 2254(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s incustody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence.”). Thus, Petitioner’s 

claim does not appear to confer habeas jurisdiction upon this Court.

 1 Petitioner names the State of California as the respondent on the face of his petition. A petitioner must name the 

state officer who has custody of him or her as the respondent in a federal habeas petition. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Proceedings; Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994). This person typically is 

the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. “Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent 

deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.” Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 

Case 2:15-cv-01197-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01774 DMG (AS) Date March 31, 2015

Title David Alvarado v. People of the State of California

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL 

Page 2 of 2

Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than April 14, 2015, why this 

action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Instead of filing a response to the instant Order, 

Petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. 

Case 2:15-cv-01197-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2