Williams v. County of Clark

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/19/2018. (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

JAMES WILLIAMS,

10
11

v.

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

ORDER

COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,

12
13

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

Petitioner,

Respondents.
Before the court is James Williams’ pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 5, 2018, this court directed Williams to show
cause and file such proof to demonstrate that he satisfied the in-custody requirement at
the time he filed this petition (ECF No. 3). 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). 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).
Williams filed a response to the show-cause order in which he states that he was
on a form of “informal probation” at the time he filed this petition because the court told
him to stay out of trouble and to stay out of the resort corridor in Las Vegas (ECF No.
4). This is insufficient to satisfy the custody requirement. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
Dated: June 19, 2018.

7

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2