Kozlowski v. State of California

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/26/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Warden, Respondent. / MATTHEW MARK KOZLOWSKI, Petitioner, No. C 10-1442 PJH (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner contends that the restitution obligation imposed upon him at the time of his 1991 sentencing violated his constitutional rights. An application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner can be entertained by a federal court only "on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Ninth Circuit, whose decisions are binding on this court, has recently held that a petitioner who challenges only imposition of a restitution obligation is not challenging his custody, so the there is no subject matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition making only a restitution claim. Bailey v. Hill, 2010 WL 1133435 at *4-7 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2010). Because petitioner challenges only his restitution obligation, the case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner may disregard the clerk's notice regarding his in forma pauperis status. The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2010. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\KOZLOWSKI1442.DSM.wpd