Kent Craig v. Shawn Hatton

Filing 8

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is Ordered that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KENT CRAIG,

) NO. ED CV 17-2198-PA(E)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
)
SHAWN HATTON, Warden,
) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
Respondent.
)
)
______________________________)

17
18

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

19

Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20

section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District

21

Court for the Central District of California.

22
23

PROCEEDINGS

24
25

Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

26

Person in State Custody” on October 25, 2017.

27

only Petitioner’s restitution obligation.

28

the criminal judgment imposing restitution has “elapsed” because

The Petition challenges

Petitioner contends that

1

the judgment assertedly was not renewed within the ten-year period

2

provided in California Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020.1

3

plainly appears from the face of the Petition that this Court lacks

4

jurisdiction to grant habeas relief to Petitioner.

5

Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

6

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

7

District Courts.

It

Therefore, the

8
DISCUSSION

9
10
11

Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted “only on the ground

12

that [Petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

13

laws or treaties of the United States.”

14

2254(a)’s “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional.

Bailey v. Hill,

15

599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Physical

16

custody alone is insufficient to confer habeas jurisdiction.

17

980.

18

the allegedly unlawful nature of the custody.

19

court lacks jurisdiction over a challenge to the non-custodial

20

component(s) of a sentence.

21

not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s in-custody challenge

22

to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence.”

23

at 982; see also Rodriguez v. Cate, 475 Fed. App’x 679, at *1 (9th

24

Cir. 2012) (California state prisoner’s habeas challenge to

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

Section

Id. at

Rather, there must be a nexus between the petitioner’s claim and

Id.

Id.

A federal habeas

Accordingly, section 2254(a) “does

25
26
27
28

1

Section 683.020 provides that a money judgment may not
be enforced after the expiration of ten years. Upon application
by the judgment creditor, a judgment may be renewed prior to the
expiration of the ten-year period. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
683.130 et seq..
2

Id.

1

restitution order properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction);

2

Wallace v. Barnes, 2017 WL 4181059, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017)

3

(“Because petitioner's claim challenges only the restitution portion

4

of his sentence, the ‘custody’ requirement of Section 2254(a) is not

5

satisfied and the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this

6

claim.”); Frasier v. Trimble, 2015 WL 4606268, at *15 (C.D. Cal. July

7

20, 2015) (“The federal habeas statute does not provide jurisdiction

8

over a claim challenging a restitution order, even when the petitioner

9

is incarcerated.”) (citation omitted).

10

Therefore, the Petition should

be denied and dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

11
RECOMMENDATION

12
13
14

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue

15

an Order:

16

and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the

17

Petition without prejudice.

(1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation;

18
19

DATED: October 31, 2017.

20
21
22

/s/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2

NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of

3

Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file

4

objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of

5

Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials

6

appear in the docket number.

7

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of

8

the judgment of the District Court.

No notice of appeal pursuant to the

9

If the District Judge enters judgment adverse to Petitioner, the

10

District Judge will, at the same time, issue or deny a certificate of

11

appealability.

12

and Recommendation, the parties may file written arguments regarding

13

whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Report