Huryta v. Mental Health Board

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROCKY ALLEN HURYTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH BOARD,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3016

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner Rocky Huryta’s Amended Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) (Filing No. 7). Huryta filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) in this matter on January 22, 2014
(Filing No. 1). On June 19, 2014, the court conducted an initial review of the Petition
and determined that it was nonsensical. (See Filing No. 6.) The court directed Huryta
to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus that clearly presented his claims
for relief. Huryta filed his Amended Petition (Filing No. 7) on July 10, 2014.
Huryta’s Amended Petition is nonsensical. As best as the court can tell, Huryta
does not state any grounds on which he claims he is being held in violation of the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Moreover, Huryta is a
nonprisoner. Federal law requires that a “habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the
conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (per curium), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The “in
custody” requirement is a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 490. Here, it does not
appear that Huryta is “in custody.” Regardless, his Petition and Amended Petition are
nonsensical and do not state a basis for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the court
will dismiss this matter without prejudice to reassertion of a habeas corpus petition
that clearly sets forth Huryta’s claims for relief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is dismissed without
prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum
and Order.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2