Stanley v. State of California

Filing 11

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/13/18 ORDERING this case be randomly assigned to a District Court Judge. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be d ismissed with prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED, that respondent's motion to dismiss be denied as moot in light of this court's lack of jurisdiction. MOTION to DISMISS 7 assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE STANLEY,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-01486 CKD P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SUZANNE M. PEERY,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

19

dismiss the petition based on the failure to exhaust state court remedies. ECF No. 7. For the

20

reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends dismissing the habeas corpus petition

21

based on lack of jurisdiction and denying the motion to dismiss as moot.

22

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

23

Petitioner was convicted in the Butte County Superior Court in 2013 of False Pretenses

24

and Contracting without a License. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison. His conviction was

25

affirmed on direct appeal by the California Court of Appeal.

26

On July 18, 2017, petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus application challenging the

27

restitution order entered by the trial court on various constitutional grounds. ECF No. 1. In his

28

application for habeas relief, petitioner states that he “is presently in the process of exhausting
1

1

each of the claims in the petition before the state courts. Earlier exhaustion was prevented by

2

multiple circumstances.” ECF No. 1 at 5.

3

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the federal habeas petition on the ground that

4

petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies prior to filing. ECF No. 7. On November 30,

5

2017, this court granted petitioner the opportunity to file a request for a stay and abeyance or to

6

file a notice of exhaustion if his state court remedies had been exhausted subsequent to the date of

7

filing. ECF No. 10. Petitioner failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or this court’s

8

November order.

9

II.

10

Analysis

The federal habeas corpus statute allows a district court to “entertain an application for a

11

writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court

12

only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

13

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In analyzing this custody requirement, the Ninth Circuit

14

Court of Appeal has emphasized that it has two distinct components. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d

15

976, 982 (9th Cir. 2010). First, a petitioner must be physically confined or have his or her liberty

16

restrained at the time of filing the federal habeas application. Id. at 979 (emphasizing that

17

collateral consequences to a conviction are not sufficient restraints on liberty to meet the “in

18

custody” requirement). Secondly, and most relevant here, is that there must be a nexus between

19

the claim for relief and petitioner’s actual confinement. Id. In this case, the only portion of the

20

state court judgment that petitioner is challenging is the restitution order. If this court were to

21

grant him relief, it would not result in his release from custody even one day sooner. The fact or

22

duration of petitioner’s custody is therefore not even at issue in the present proceedings. For this

23

reason, and based on the substantial precedent establishing a lack of jurisdiction over restitution

24

orders, the undersigned recommends dismissing petitioner’s application for federal habeas corpus

25

relief. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d at 982 (finding that Ҥ 2254(a) does not confer jurisdiction

26

over a state prisoners in-custody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal

27

sentence”); see also Mulgrew v. McDonald, 474 Fed. Appx. 650 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpub.)

28

(affirming the district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition based on lack of jurisdiction even
2

1

though the district court had denied it as untimely); see accord Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d

2

1350 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that a restitution challenge is not a cognizable claim for relief under

3

§ 2254(a)); Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008) (reviewing language of § 2254(a)

4

and concluding that it does not permit challenges to the non-custodial portion of a state criminal

5

sentence).

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be randomly assigned to a District
Court Judge.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be

8
9

dismissed with prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied as

10
11

moot in light of this court’s lack of jurisdiction.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner

17

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of

18

the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district

19

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

20

applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

21

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

22

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of

23

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

24

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

25

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

2

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4

Dated: March 13, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

stan1486.dismiss.docx

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4