Paige v. People of the State of California
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/23/15 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY WAYNE PAIGE,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1399-TLN-EFB P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a county inmate proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas
17
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. Under Rule 4 of the Rules
19
Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and
20
summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court
21
has reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 and, as explained below, it must be dismissed for
22
lack of jurisdiction.
This court may entertain a challenge to custody imposed pursuant to the judgment of a
23
24
state court only on the ground that such custody violates “the Constitution or laws or treaties of
25
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For a federal court to have jurisdiction, petitioner must at
26
the time he files his petition be in custody pursuant to the judgment of the state court. Maleng v.
27
Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); see also Carafas v. LaValle, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968).
28
/////
1
In this case, petitioner challenges a 1989 judgment of conviction, which became final in
2
1990 after the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. See ECF No. 1. He was
3
sentenced to a term in state prison as a result of that judgment, and was released from custody in
4
November 1992. Id. Petitioner cannot challenge the 1989 judgment because he is no longer in
5
custody as a result of that judgment. See Woodall v. Beauchamp, 450 F. App’x 655, 657 (9th Cir.
6
2011) (habeas petitioner must be in custody as a result of the challenged conviction, not on
7
unrelated charges). Because petitioner was not in custody pursuant to the judgment of conviction
8
when he filed his petition, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
9
10
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
13
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
14
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
15
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
16
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
17
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In
18
his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the
19
event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing
20
§ 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
21
final order adverse to the applicant).
22
Dated: September 23, 2015.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?