Bailey v. Borla

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/23/2024. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JASPER BAILEY, G60744,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 24-cv-04377-CRB (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

v.
E. BORLA, Warden,

(ECF No. 2)

Respondent.

12

I.

13

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in

14

Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

15

challenging restitution and other fines totaling more than $10,000 imposed by the Santa Clara

16

County Superior Court in 2009 in connection with an indeterminate life sentence for multiple sex

17

crimes. Petitioner also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

18

(ECF No. 2), which, good cause appearing, is granted.

19
20

II.
The federal habeas statute permits courts to entertain petitions for a writ of habeas corpus

21

“in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that

22

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

23
24
25
26
27
28

§ 2254(a). Section 2254(a) uses the term “in custody” twice, with two different requirements.
Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). The first usage (i.e., that the petition be filed “in
behalf of a person in custody”) requires that there be a restraint on the petitioner's liberty. Id. at
978-79. The second usage (i.e., that the application may be entertained “only on the ground that
he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”) requires
“a nexus between the petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Id. at 979-80.

1

For the second requirement to be satisfied, success on the claim must result in a change in the

2

restraint on the petitioner’s liberty. Id. at 980.

3
4

$10,000 because he is indigent fails to satisfy the second custody requirement because success on

5

the claim would not affect any restraint on petitioner’s liberty. See id. at 980-81 (imprisoned

6

petitioner failed to satisfy custody requirement for his petition challenging only restitution fine

7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in imposing excessive fines totaling more than

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

component of his sentence because “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 he must serve
the rest of his prison sentence in the same manner). Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas
relief on his imposition of excessive fines claim. See id.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack
of “in custody” jurisdiction. And pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be
said that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2024
______________________________________
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2