Hawkins v. Gilbert

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 14 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by David Allen Hawkins. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Hawkins, Prisoner ID: 271420)(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

DAVID ALLEN HAWKINS,

8
9
10

Petitioner,

CASE NO. C16-5007 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
MARGARET GILBERT,

11

Respondent.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

14 of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 13), and
15 Petitioner David Hawkins’s (“Hawkins”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 14).
16

On November 30, 2015, Hawkins filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

17 seeking relief from the restitution portion of his judgment and sentence. Dkt. 4. On May
18 12, 2016, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending the Court deny the habeas
19 petition because the Court lacks jurisdiction. Dkt. 13. Specifically, Judge Strombom
20 concluded that Hawkins’s petition does not satisfy § 2254’s “in custody” requirement
21 because he seeks relief from his financial obligations rather than release from custody.
22 Id. On June 10, 2016, Hawkins filed objections. Dkt. 14.

ORDER - 1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s

2 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides:
3
4

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
6
The majority of Hawkins’s objections concern the merits of his habeas petition.
7
See Dkt. 14. The Court, however, may not consider the merits of Hawkins’s petition if it
8
lacks jurisdiction. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Section
9
2254(a)’s ‘in custody’ requirement is jurisdictional and therefore ‘it is the first question
10
[the Court] must consider.’” (quoting Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th
11
Cir. 1998)).
12
With respect to whether the Court has jurisdiction, Hawkins argues he is
13
challenging the “conditions” of his confinement and therefore satisfies § 2254’s “in
14
custody” requirement. Dkt. 14 at 3–4. Although Hawkins is in physical custody, his
15
habeas petition only challenges his order of restitution, which is insufficient to confer
16
jurisdiction on the Court. See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980. Specifically, Hawkins argues that
17
the Department of Corrections has illegally imposed an additional period of
18
“supervision,” but Hawkins does not contest the custody portion of any period of that
19
alleged additional supervision. Dkt. 14 at 2–4. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction
20
to consider the merits of his petition.
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

The Court having considered the R&R, Hawkins’s objections, and the remaining

2 record, does hereby find and order as follows:
3

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

4

(2)

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

5

(3)

The issuance of a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and

6

(2)

This action is DISMISSED.

7

Dated this 18th day of July, 2016.

A

8
9

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3