Williams v. County of Clark

Filing 3

ORDER that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order to show cause. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/5/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

JAMES WILLIAMS,
v.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER

COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,

12
13

Case No. 2:17-cv-02952-APG-PAL

Petitioner,

Respondents.
Before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, submitted by James Williams (ECF No. 1). He has paid the filing fee
(see ECF No. 1-1).
It appears from Williams’ filing that he is no longer in custody pursuant to the
judgment of conviction he wishes to challenge. The federal habeas statute gives the
United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from
persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), noted that the Court
“interpreted the statutory language as requiring that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’
under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” 490 U.S.
at 490-91 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). A person who is on parole or probation
at the time he files his federal habeas petition satisfies the custody requirement. Jones
v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240-243 (1963).

27
28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Here, Williams asserts, among other claims, that insufficient evidence supported
his conviction for conducting business on a public right-of-way in Las Vegas Justice
Court Case No. 16M26671X. The court takes judicial notice of the Las Vegas Justice
Court public inmate information, and it appears that Williams has discharged his
sentence and has been released from custody.
In an abundance of caution, the court grants Williams thirty (30) days from the
date of this order to show cause and file such proof to demonstrate that he was in
custody pursuant to the judgment of conviction he wishes to challenge at the time he
filed this petition. If Williams cannot demonstrate that he meets the custody
requirement, this court shall enter an order dismissing the petition with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from
the date of entry of this order to show cause and file such proof he may have to
demonstrate that the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner is unable to demonstrate that he
satisfies the custody requirement, the court will enter an order dismissing the petition.
DATED: 5 April 2018.

18

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2