Rodriguez v. California Department of Corrections et al
Filing
5
ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
In Re
9
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,
No. C-12-4435 EMC (pr)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner.
___________________________________/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Manuel Rodriguez commenced this action by filing a petition for a “writ of habeas corpus[,]
13
or in the alternative by writ of mandate, or a writ of coram nobis directing the Superior Court for the
14
County of Monterey to vacate and set aside the conviction” of petitioner. Docket # 1, p. 1. The
15
conviction under attack was a 1999 misdemeanor assault conviction from Monterey County Superior
16
Court or Monterey County Municipal Court. This Court issued an order explaining that neither a
17
writ of mandate nor a writ of error coram nobis was available to Petitioner and that his remedy, if
18
any, was a writ of habeas corpus. This Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this action
19
should not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the custody requirement, for untimeliness, and for
20
failure to exhaust state court remedies. This Court also ordered Petitioner to name a proper
21
respondent.
22
Petitioner filed a response in which he attempted to show that he met the custody
23
requirement. He stated that, due to the conviction, he cannot carry a firearm and that his inability to
24
carry a firearm disqualifies him from obtaining a job in his preferred field of law enforcement.
25
The federal writ of habeas corpus is available only to persons “in custody” at the time the
26
petition is filed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968).
27
The custody requirement is jurisdictional. See Carafas, 391 U.S. at 238. Petitioner’s inability to
28
lawfully carry a firearm and his inability to obtain a particular kind of job are collateral
1
consequences that do not satisfy the custody requirement for habeas corpus jurisdiction.
2
See Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1987) (revocation of medical license based upon
3
petitioner’s conviction not satisfy custody requirement for petitioner who filed following
4
unconditional release from probationary period); see also Ginsberg v. Abrams, 702 F.2d 48, 49 (2d.
5
Cir. 1983) (where sentence of unconditional discharge entailed neither imprisonment, fine, nor
6
probation supervision, judge’s removal from bench, loss of right to practice law and disqualification
7
from licensure as agent insufficient to constitute custody); Harvey v. South Dakota, 526 F.2d 840,
8
841 (8th Cir. 1975) (inability to pursue certain professions, to possess firearms, and status of
9
recidivist if another crime committed do not amount to custody). Regardless of the existence of
serious collateral consequences stemming from petitioner’s conviction, the absence of custody at the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
time of the filing of the petition means that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
12
petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2005)
13
The action must be dismissed.
14
The action is dismissed for the separate and additional reason that the Court lacks personal
15
jurisdiction due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent. See Stanley v. California
16
Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
17
18
19
In light of the dismissal of the action for jurisdictional reasons, the Court does not reach the
non-jurisdictional problems of untimeliness and non-exhaustion of state court remedies.
A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in
20
which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
21
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
22
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: January 2, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
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?