## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4236 M ICHAEL L . W A S H I NG T ON, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. J UD Y P. S MITH, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:08- cv-00111- A EG

—A aro n E . G oods tei n, Magis trate Judge

. S UB MI TT ED J AN UA RY 30, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 8, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, K ANN E , a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R O VNER, C ircu it Judge. A W i sco nsi n j ury convi cted M i ch ae l W as hi ng ton off o r g er y - ut te r i ng . He was s en tence d to ser ve tw o and a half years i n pri son and thre e yea rs o fsuperv i si on. A dd i ti onal l y, the tr i al co urt or dered W ashi n gt on to pay r est i tuti on i n the am ount o f$1 5, 000, as w ell as ot h er fine s a n d co st s . A fte r ex h au st in g h is sta te re m edi es, W ashi ngto n fi l ed a pet i tio n fo r a wri t o f hab e a s c o r pu s . 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 4
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni ed W as h in gt on ’s p et itio n, bu t c er tifie d an iss u e fo r ap p ea l:2 N o. 08

- 4236

w hetherW ashi ngto n’s at tor ney pr ovi ded i neff ecti ve as si st an ce wi thr es pec t to the r es ti tu ti o n a m ou nt
. The d ist ric t c ou rtd e n ied relie f on th is c laim be c au se it do es no t at ta cka c us to di ala spec t o fW as hi ng to n’ s se ntence and, thus, does not sta te a cl ai m f or re lief und er t h e h a b e a s c o r p u s s t a t u t e s . We a g r e e a n d t h e r e f o r e a f fi r m. A st at e p ris on er m ay ob ta in h ab ea s c or p u s relie f “o n ly o n the g r o und tha t he i s i n c us to dy i n v i o l at i on ofthe C on st itu tio n o r l aw s o r tr ea tie s o f th e U n ite d Sta te s.” § 2254 ( a)
. I t i s th e cus to dy i ts el ftha t m us t vi o l at e th e Con st i tu ti o n. Acco r di ng l y , pr i son er s who ar e no t se ek i ng ear l i ero r i m m ed iat e r el eas e a re notse eki ng habe as c or p u s re lief. Se e, e . g. , Wi l ki ns on v. D ot s on , 54 4 U.S
. 74 ( 2005 ) ; D a n i e l s v. U nited Sta tes , 5 3 2 U. S
. 3 74 ( 2 0 0 1 )
. An al ter nate f or m ula tion of thi s ba si c pri nci ple i s that a habeas co rpus peti ti on m ust a tta ck the fa ct o r du ra ti on ofo ne’ s s entence ; i fi t doe s no t, i t d oes notst ate a p ro p er ba sis for re lief u n d er § 22 54 or § 22 5 5. M or an v. Sond alle, 218 F.3d 647 ( 7th Cir. 2000). Th e r e i s n o que s t i o n t ha tWas hi ng ton w as i n c us t o dy p u rs u an t t o a st at e c ou rtj u d gm en t w h en h e filed h is peti ti on: h e was se rv i ng hi s t w o and a hal fye ar se ntence o f i m pr i so nm en t an d, ac co r di ng to o ur do ck et, s ti l l i s. But W ashi ngto n’s peti ti on

— at l eas t the cl ai m cer ti fi ed f or a ppeal

— at ta ck s o nl y the c al cul at i o n o fthe a m o unthe o wes i n r es ti tu ti o n. I n B a rnic k el v. U nited Sta tes , 113 F. 3d 704 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) , thi s co urt rul ed that a § 22 55 m oti on

— the federa l pri sone r’ s e quiva l ent t o a § 22 54 peti ti on atta cking a crim inal j ud gm en t e nt ered by a state cou rt

— is unavai l abl e t o chal l enge a r est ituti on o rderi m posed asN o. 08

- 4236 3 p ar t o f a c rim in al s en te n c e. Id . at 7 06 ; see a lso O ba do v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 71 6, 71 7 (3 d C ir. 20 03 ) (“[A ] fine -on ly co nv i ct i o n i s no t en o ug h o fa r es tr ai nto n l ibe r tyt o c o nst i tu te ‘ cus to dy’ wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe habe as c o r pus sta tu tes. ”)
. W ashi ngto n couches hi s cl ai m i n the si xth amendmentand, thus , a dequa te l y a l l eg es a c o ns ti tu
tio n al v iola tio n . B u t s h ou ld h e w in, th e o n ly p os sib le be ne fi t to hi m wi l l b e a l o wer pa y m en t to hi s vict i m ; he w ill st ill be o b liga te d to se rv e t w o a n d a h alf y ea rs in p rison an d three y e a r s on su p ervision. W ash ington ’s at ta cko n c o uns el ’ s ha nd l i ngo fthe r es ti tu ti o n a m o unt si m ply does notst ate a cogni zabl e cl ai m fo r re l i efunder § 2 25 4. See P e r r u q u et v. B riley, 390 F.3d 505 , 511 (7th C ir. 20 04) ( “To s ay that a peti ti oner ’ s cl ai m i s no t co gni za b le on h ab eas r evi ew i s thus another w ay ofsa yi ng tha t hi s cl ai m pre sent s n o fe derali ssue at al l

. ”) ( quotati on om itted ). The dis tr i ct c ourtj ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

5- 8- 09