Miller v. Ferguson
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART AND DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS ACTION. The Report and Recommendation 13 is ADOPTED IN PART. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. This matter is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (cc:JPD)(LW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
KENNETH MILLER,
9
10
11
12
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT FERGUSON, Washington State
Attorney General,
CASE NO. C18-530RSM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN PART AND
DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS
CORPUS ACTION
Respondent.
13
14
15
Petitioner, proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeks to challenge his state court
16
conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Dkts. #1 and #2. The Honorable
17
James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, thoroughly considered the Petition and
18
19
determined that this Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly recommended
that Petitioner’s action be dismissed. Dkt. #13. Petitioner has filed Objections to the Report and
20
21
22
Recommendation. Dkt. #15. Having reviewed the Objections and the rest of the record, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part and dismisses the Petition.
23
Petitioner was previously convicted of a felony offense in a Washington State court and
24
under Washington State law. Petitioner believes that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he
25
was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 5.1. Petitioner seeks relief on
26
that basis. However, at Petitioner’s request, the parties have not briefed the substantive issue and
ORDER – 1
1
2
instead have addressed whether Petitioner is “in custody” such that the Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
3
By the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner had already served his jail sentence and his
4
term of community custody. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 9.1. Thus, Petitioner concedes that he is not in the
5
6
physical custody of the State. Id. However, as a consequence of Petitioner’s conviction, he may
not lawfully own, possess, or have a firearm under his control. REV. CODE WASH. § 9.41.040(1).
7
8
9
Petitioner maintains that this restriction on his Constitutional right is a “serious disability which
suffices to constitute ‘custody’ for habeas corpus purposes.” Dkt. #1 at ¶ 9.2.
10
As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, no legal authority establishes that a
11
restriction on the possession of firearms places a person “in custody” for the purpose of habeas
12
corpus petitions. Certain restraints upon the “liberty to do those things which in this country free
13
14
15
16
[people] are entitled to do,” can constitute custody for purposes of habeas relief. Jones v.
Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243 (1963). But within the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he precedents that have
found a restraint on liberty [to constitute “custody”] rely heavily on the notion of a physical sense
17
of liberty—that is, whether the legal disability in question somehow limits the putative habeas
18
petitioner’s movement.” Dkt. #13 at 6 (quoting Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183
19
(9th Cir. 1998)).
20
21
22
23
24
Petitioner’s Objections1 retrace many of the same arguments he has previously advanced,
while adding little. On the whole, Petitioner’s arguments stretch the precedent upon which they
rely beyond recognition. For instance, Petitioner argues that the Report and Recommendation
adopts an overly rigid distinction between direct and collateral consequences of a conviction and
25
26
1
Petitioner’s Objections are over-length under Local Civil Rule 72. Accordingly, the Court need
not consider pages filed in excess of the applicable limit. Even so, nothing therein would alter
the Court’s decision.
ORDER – 2
1
that such an approach has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Dkt. #15 at 4–5 (relying on
2
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010)). But Padilla’s consideration of direct and collateral
3
consequences was in a markedly different context and is inapplicable. The Court does not
4
understand Petitioner’s argument to be that his counsel was ineffective by failing to inform
5
6
Petitioner of the effect a conviction would have on his right to bear arms. This presents but one
instance of Petitioner’s arguments that, while convincingly made, lack an adequate legal basis.
7
8
9
10
In sum, Petitioner’s Objections do not establish any factual or legal errors in the Report and
Recommendation. Under the prevailing law and for the reasons aptly articulated in the Report
and Recommendation, Petitioner is not “in custody” and therefore cannot pursue this Petition.
11
The Court does diverge from the Report and Recommendation in one regard. The Court
12
does not believe that a certificate of appealability should issue. In a habeas proceeding under 28
13
14
15
16
U.S.C. § 2254, a certificate of appealability should issue “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A substantial
showing requires that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
17
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 826 (9th Cir.
18
2009). Where a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner must also show that
19
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
20
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As established in the Report and
21
22
23
24
Recommendation, Petitioner is clearly not in custody for purposes of § 2254 and the Court finds
that reasonable jurists would not find such a procedural ruling debatable. Accordingly, the Court
will not grant a certificate of appealability.
25
Having reviewed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner’s Brief in Support,
26
Respondent’s Answer, Petitioner’s Response, the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s
ORDER – 3
1
2
Objections, Respondent’s Response to Objections, and the remainder of the record, the Court
hereby finds and ORDERS:
3
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #13) is ADOPTED IN PART.
4
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #1), and this action, are DISMISSED
5
6
with prejudice.
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
7
8
9
10
11
4. The CLERK IS DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to Magistrate
Judge James P. Donohue.
5. This matter is CLOSED.
DATED this 17 day of December 2018.
12
A
13
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER – 4
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?