Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00701-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Montgomery
Respondent
Johnny A. Sanglang
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHNNY A. SANGLANG, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MONTGOMERY, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:14-cv-00701 MCE AC P 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF. No. 1. Pending before the court is 

respondent’s motion to dismiss. ECF. No. 10. Petitioner opposes the motion. ECF. No. 12. No 

reply was filed. 

Petition 

In his habeas petition, petitioner challenges the imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine as 

part of a judgment entered against him in the Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF. No. 1 at 

2, 6. Petitioner claims that the sentencing court erred in imposing the restitution fine because it 

failed to take into account his ability to pay and was excessive in light of the seriousness of the 

offense. ECF. No. 1 at 13-19. Accordingly, petitioner seeks a modification of the restitution fine 

imposed in his state court case from $10,000 to $200. 

Motion to Dismiss 

 Respondent moves for dismissal of the petition, contending that petitioner’s federal 

Case 2:14-cv-00701-MCE-AC Document 13 Filed 02/13/15 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 

27 

28 

2

habeas petition challenging his restitution fine is not cognizable on habeas. ECF. No. 10 at 2-3. 

Discussion 

 Petitioner challenges only the restitution fine aspect of his state court sentence. ECF. No. 

1. The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly recognized that the imposition of a fine, by itself, is not 

sufficient to meet § 2254’s jurisdictional requirements.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Petitioner does not challenge the legality or conditions of his 

custody. “That [petitioner] is in physical custody while attacking the restitution order is 

insufficient to confer jurisdiction over his habeas petition.” Id. at 981. The federal habeas statute 

“does not confer jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition raising an in-custody challenge to a 

restitution order.” Id. at 984. The court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the 

pending federal habeas petition and recommends that the respondent’s motion to dismiss be 

granted. 

Certificate of Appealability 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 

certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 

findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 

not been made in this case. Therefore, no certificate of appealability should issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. 

2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

 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-one days 

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

Case 2:14-cv-00701-MCE-AC Document 13 Filed 02/13/15 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 

27 

28 

3

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: February 12, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-00701-MCE-AC Document 13 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 3