Court Opinion

ID: 2962045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:51:47.162928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:43.325642
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          August 20, 1993       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 92-2310                                              LAWRENCE KINGSLEY,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                        COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,                               Respondents, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                             ______________                                 ___________________               Dr. Lawrence Kingsley on brief pro se.               _____________________               Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and   Elisabeth  J.               __________________                             _____________          Medvedow, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.          ________                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.   Pro se  petitioner Lawrence  Kingsley                      __________    ___ __            appeals  from the dismissal  of his petition  for relief from            certain  state court  traffic convictions  under 28  U.S.C.              2254.    We  have  thoroughly  reviewed  the  record  and the            parties' briefs on appeal.  We are persuaded that this habeas            petition was properly dismissed  because Kingsley was not "in            custody"  when  he filed  it,  therefore  the district  court            lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  See, e.g., United States                                                 ___  ____  _____________            v. Michaud, 901  F.2d 5,7  (1st Cir. 1990)  (per curiam)  ("A               _______            monetary fine is  not a  sufficient restraint  on liberty  to            meet  the  'in custody'  requirement  for    2255  purposes);            Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60,  61 (1st Cir.            _______    ______________________            1986)(per  curiam) (modest  fines  for  speeding and  license            suspension "'not the sort of severe[] restraint on individual            liberty'  for  which  habeas  corpus   relief  is  reserved")            (citations omitted);  Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st                                  ______    _____            Cir. 1984).                 Judgment affirmed                      _________________                                         -2-