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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?