PECHKO v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 1/4/2016. (mmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MICHAEL C. PECHKO,
Civil Action No. 15-3676 (FLW)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN J. HOFFMAN, et al.,
Respondents.
This matter having been opened by Petitioner’s filing of a Petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, titled “Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person Facing
State Custody.” It appearing that:
1. Petitioner, who resides in Brick, New Jersey and is represented by counsel, filed the
instant habeas Petition on June 1, 2015. (ECF No.)
2.
On June 9, 2015, the Court screened the Petition for summary dismissal pursuant to Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court
found that the Petition may be subject to dismissal on its face for failure to meet the “in custody”
requirement for federal habeas review because Petitioner, who is not currently incarcerated, did
not include any facts or supporting documentation that would satisfy the “in custody”
jurisdictional requirement for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). See Maleng v. Cook, 490
U.S. 488, 490 (1989); see also Hensley v. Mun. Court, San Jose Milpitas Judicial Dist., 411 U.S.
345, 351 (“The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ
of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty.”); Leyva v. Williams, 504
F.3d 357, 362 (3d Cir. 2007) (A federal district court has jurisdiction to entertain a habeas
1
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) “only if [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the
constitution or federal law.”) (citations omitted and emphasis added).
3. With respect to the “in custody” requirement, Petitioner’s Petition indicated only that he
resides in Brick, New Jersey, and “faces deprivation of his liberty in that he is subject to
confinement at the [Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (“IDRC”)].” (ECF No. 1.) The Court,
therefore, could not determine from the Petition whether Petitioner was still “subject to
confinement at the IDRC” at the time he filed his habeas petition or was otherwise in custody. 1
See United States ex rel Wojtycha v. Hopkins, 517 F.2d 420, 423 n.6 (3d Cir. 1975) (“in custody’
jurisdictional requirement is determined as of the date the petition is filed in the district court”)
(citations omitted).
4. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which required Petitioner to explain why his
Petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to meet the “in custody”
requirement. (ECF No. 2.) The Order to Show Cause also notified Petitioner as follows: “To
the extent Petitioner intends to provide facts demonstrating that he meets the ‘in custody’
requirement for habeas relief, he should submit a certification and supporting documents, as well
1
Because it was unclear whether Petitioner was currently confined at the IDRC, the Court made
no determination as to whether such confinement at the IDRC rendered Petitioner “in custody”
for purposes of habeas relief. A petitioner is in custody for purposes of habeas relief where he or
she is “subject both to ‘significant restraints on liberty . . . which were not shared by the public
generally,’ along with ‘some type of continuing governmental supervision.’” Obado v. New
Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 717 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Barry v. Bergen County Probation Dept., 128
F.3d 152, 160 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491 (prisoner placed on parole is still
in custody because his “release from physical confinement under the sentence in question was
not unconditional; instead, it was explicitly conditioned on his reporting regularly to his parole
officer, remaining in a particular community, residence, and job, and refraining from certain
activities”). In this context, the Third Circuit has held that a 500-hour community service
obligation in effect at the time the Petitioner filed the habeas petition satisfied the “in custody”
requirement, reasoning that “an individual who is required to be in a certain place . . . or to
perform services[ ] is clearly subject to restraints on his liberty not shared by the public
generally.” Barry, 128 F.3d at 161.
2
as any applicable legal arguments. Failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this Order may
result in the dismissal of his Petition.” (Id.)
5. Petitioner has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause or otherwise
communicated with the Court. As such, the Court assesses the Petition as filed and finds that the
Petition fails to provide any facts showing that Petitioner was “in custody” at the time he filed
his Petition. The Court will, therefore, dismiss the Petition pursuant to its screening authority for
lack of jurisdiction, see Leyva, 504 F.3d at 362 (A federal district court has jurisdiction to
entertain a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) “only if [the petitioner] is in custody in
violation of the constitution or federal law.”) (citations omitted and emphasis added), and will
administratively terminate the case accordingly. 2 An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Freda L. Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J.
Date: January 4, 2016
2
The Court makes no findings as to whether the Petition is otherwise timely.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?