Rios v. Warden of KVSP

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/22/2015 GRANTING petitioner's 2 , 7 motion to proceed IFP; DISMISSING petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction; and the Clerk shall close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENO RIOS,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00658 AC P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

WARDEN, Kern Valley State Prison,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has

19

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 6.

21

Examination of petitioner’s affidavits, see ECF No. 2 and 7, reveal that he is unable to

22

afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

24

However, review of the petition demonstrates that this court is without jurisdiction to

25

consider the matter challenged therein. Petitioner asserts that, at his sentencing in 1990, the

26

superior court improperly imposed a restitution fine of $10,000. See Petition, ECF No. 1 at 34.

27

Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the fine is excessive, was not itemized, was imposed without

28

an evidentiary hearing and in violation of state statute, and was imposed without regard to
1

1

petitioner’s limited ability to pay the fine based on his prison work assignments. Petitioner

2

asserts that the fine violates his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States

3

Constitution.

4

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

5

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

6

entitled to relief in the district court.”

7

Federal habeas corpus relief is available “only on the ground that [petitioner] is in custody

8

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

9

This portion of Section 2254’s “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional and requires that the

10

matter challenged by a habeas petition be premised on the claim that petitioner’s “custody offends

11

federal law.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, there must be a nexus

12

between petitioner’s claim and the allegedly unlawful nature of his custody. Noncustodial

13

components of a sentence do not suppoprt federal habeas jurisdiction. Id. at 981-82; see also

14

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent . . . where a

15

successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”).

16

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the imposition of a fine, by itself, is not sufficient to

17

meet § 2254’s jurisdictional requirements.” Id. at 979 (citing cases). More specifically, Section

18

2254 “does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s in-custody challenge to a restitution

19

order imposed as part of a criminal sentence.” Id. at 982.

20
21

For these reasons, the court finds that it is without jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s
challenge to the subject restitution fine, which requires dismissal of this action.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF Nos. 2, 7, is

24

granted;

25

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;

26

and

27

////

28

////
2

1
2

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
DATED: April 22, 2015

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3