Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01640-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Butte County Superior Court
Respondent
James C. Canfield
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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES C. CANFIELD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1640 LKK GGH P

vs.

BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

Notwithstanding that petitioner has retained counsel and that the petition was filed on August 9,

2007, counsel has evidently failed to effect service of the petition. 

Petitioner claims to be “restrained of liberty under a Temporary Restraining Order

(TRO) in Butte County,” and avers that he is “further restrained... by the Butte County Superior

Court’s ruling excluding certain evidence.” Petition, ¶ 3. Petitioner concedes that he is not

incarcerated; he maintains, however, that the TRO deprives him of his First Amendment right to

freedom of expression in Butte County, and that the superior court’s ruling denying his request to

make an inquiry into the Feminist Women’s Health Center informed consent procedure violates

an unborn child’s right to life under the Fifth Amendment and a woman’s right to choose

Case 2:07-cv-01640-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment. Petition, ¶¶ 1, 5, 10.

“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to

entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 109

S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). The “in custody”

requirement is jurisdictional, and “requir[es] that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the

conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-

491, 109 S. Ct. at 1925. This is because the writ of habeas corpus functions primarily to secure

immediate release from illegal physical custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.

Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973). 

Petitioner simply does not meet the in-custody requirement in challenging a state

court’s TRO. Tree Top v. Smith, 577 F.2d 519 (9 Cir. 1978). See also Carter v. United States, th

733 F.2d 735, 736 (10 Cir. 1984) (disallowing habeas challenge to injunction). Nor may this

th

court issue a mandate directing the state court to vacate the TRO because federal courts lack

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. Demos v. United States Dist. Court for

the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9 Cir. 1991), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651. th

Moreover, although the U.S. Supreme Court has over time significantly narrowed

the reach of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464, 126 S. Ct. 1198

(2006)), to the degree petitioner seeks injunctive relief related to a state court’s issuance of a

TRO, the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine forecloses him from that option in this court. 

Lance, supra, at 466, 126 S. Ct. 1198 (doctrine applies where a party seeks to appeal an

unfavorable state court decision in a lower federal court). Even though his challenge involves

alleged deprivations of constitutional rights, federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over

direct challenges to final decisions by state court the resolution of which would be “inextricably

intertwined with a state court’s decision.” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); see also, Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805

Case 2:07-cv-01640-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3

F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986). 

As this court simply does not have jurisdiction over this matter, the undersigned

must recommend summary dismissal of this petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed.

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 ten days

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

objections with the court. Such a 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: 12/19/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

can1640.fr

Case 2:07-cv-01640-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 3