Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06285/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06285-1/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 OF DISMISSAL

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 challenged a conviction which was entered in 1992

pursuant to a 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.

In its initial review order, the court noted that 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

Case 4:07-cv-06285-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/31/08 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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Resendez v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005). The

court held that neither is permissible. Id. at 961. Petitioner therefore was ordered to show

cause why the case should not be dismissed on the authority of Resendez. He has

responded.

Petitioner argues that he is in custody as a result of the state conviction, albeit

indirectly; this argument, however, is meritless in light of Resendez. He also argues that he

is not attacking his order of removal, but rather is attacking the state conviction. This

misses the point, which is that he is not “in custody” on the state conviction, so does not

meet the statutory “in custody” requirement. His contention his ineffective assistance claim

is the same as a claim that counsel was not allowed is clearly incorrect. And the court

need not withhold ruling pending a decision by the California Supreme Court on a similar

state law question, because there is a controlling Ninth Circuit case, Resendez, resolving

the federal question. For these reasons, petitioner has failed to show cause why the

petition should not be dismissed. 

The petition is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

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

Case 4:07-cv-06285-PJH Document 4 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 2