Farias v. Ducart

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/15/2015 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/11/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTIN ANTHONY FARIAS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
WARDEN DUCART,

15

Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00720-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS
JURISDICTION
ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE
FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

18
Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and use of a firearm in the Tulare County

19
20

Superior Court. (Doc. 1, p. 1). In November 2004, that Court sentenced him to an aggregate term of

21

forty-years-to-life. Id.
In his petition for habeas petition, he challenges only the state court’s imposition of a $5,000

22
23

restitution fine. Such a claim fails to invoke the Court’s habeas jurisdiction because it does not satisfy

24

the “in custody” requirement. As a result, the Court recommends the petition be DISMISSED.

25

I.

26

Habeas standing
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), “[t]he Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a

27

district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody

28

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
1

1

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” (Emphasis supplied). The “in custody”

2

requirement is jurisdictional for a federal habeas court. Baily v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010).

3

The “in custody” requirement of federal habeas law has two aspects. First, the petitioner must

4

be “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Baily, 599 F.3d at

5

978-979, quoting Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2005). For this aspect of “in

6

custody,” actual physical custody is not indispensable to confer jurisdiction; rather, the court will have

7

habeas jurisdiction if a sufficient “restraint on liberty,” as opposed to a mere “collateral consequence of

8

a conviction,” exists. Id. at 979. In this case, because Petitioner was in physical custody of Respondent

9

at the time he filed the instant petition, this first aspect of the “in custody” requirement is not at issue.

10

Second, the petitioner must demonstrate that there is “a nexus between the petitioner’s claim

11

and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Baily, 599 F.3d at 980. Thus, “It is not enough for [petitioner]

12

to say, in substance, my custody is okay and consistent with federal law, but I should not be burdened

13

by this restitution requirement. What [petitioner] is required to pay in restitution is not by ordinary

14

meaning a part of his custody. Id.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

In Baily, the Court flatly rejected habeas jurisdiction under such circumstances where the
petitioner seeks only to challenge the imposition of restitution.
[Petitioner’s] challenge to the restitution order lacks any nexus, as required by the plain test of
§ 2254(a), to his custody. While [petitioner’s] liberty has been severely restrained by his
conviction and custodial sentence, the remedy that [petitioner] seeks, the elimination or
alteration of a money judgment, does not directly impact–and is not directed at the source of
the restraint on–his liberty. If successful, [petitioner] could reduce his liability for restitution
but would still have to serve the rest of his custodial sentence in the same manner; his remedy
would affect only the fact or quantity of the restitution that he has to pay to the victim.
[Petitioner’s] argument is only that he has been ordered to pay restitution “in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and not that his
custody is unlawful. That he is in physical custody while attacking the restitution order is
insufficient to confer jurisdiction over his habeas petition.
Baily, 599 F.3d at 981.
As in Baily, here the petition does not challenge any other aspect of Petitioner’s 2004

25

conviction in the Tulare County Superior Court. Rather, Petitioner’s only complaint is the legality and

26

amount of the restitution fine that was imposed, arguing that evidence of Petitioner’s inability to pay

27

such a restitution amount makes the restitution order illegal. For the reasons explained above,

28

Petitioner’s physical custody is insufficient to confer habeas jurisdiction for the restitution challenge
2

1

contained in the instant petition. Id. In the absence of any challenge to Petitioner’s conviction and

2

sentence, the required nexus between the Petitioner’s sole claim and the unlawfulness of Petitioner’s

3

custody is absent. Id. Accordingly, without habeas jurisdiction, the Court cannot proceed on those

4

claims. Id.
ORDER

5

The Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign this case to a United States

6
7

District Judge.
RECOMMENDATION

8

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of habeas

9
10

corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

11
12

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

13

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21

14

days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a

15

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

16

and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten 10 days after

17

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

19

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

20

1991).

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 15, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3