Otiniano v. Macomber
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's request to reopen a previously dismissed habeas corpus action after he failed to pay the filing fee. The court denied the request, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to compel prison officials to process the payment and that the underlying petition was subject to dismissal because challenges to fines and fees do not implicate the legality of confinement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request to reopen action denied“Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to reopen the action, and as such, it remains DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacks the authority to deduct fees from a prisoner's trust account or compel prison officials to process payments, as established in Bradford v. Pickett. Furthermore, the court correctly applied the 'in custody' requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, noting that challenges to fines and fees are collateral consequences of conviction and do not attack the legality or duration of confinement, as supported by Crawford v. Bell and Williamson v. Gregoire. The decision follows from the law and the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly addresses the procedural barrier (inability to force payment) and the substantive barrier (lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition). The citations to Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the scope of habeas corpus are accurate and directly support the conclusion that the petition is subject to dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ALBERTO OTINIANO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1230-CAB-LR 13 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 14 v. REOPEN ACTION 15 16 JEFFREY MACOMBER, 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 On July 15, 2024, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 21 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in 22 forma pauperis (“IFP”). [ECF Nos. 1, 2.] On July 18, 2024, the Court denied Petitioner’s 23 IFP motion and dismissed the case because Petitioner’s trust account statement indicated 24 he could afford the requisite $5.00 filing fee. [ECF No. 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)).] 25 The Court also notified Petitioner that to have his case reopened he must pay the filing fee 26 by September 9, 2024. See id. Petitioner subsequently submitted two “supplemental 27 documents,” both of which included a copy of a trust account withdrawal request. [See 28 ECF Nos. 4, 5.] However, the filing fee was not paid and therefore, on December 13, 2024, 1 the Court dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee and ordered the Clerk to close 2 the file. [ECF No 6]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 3 On February 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Filing Fee,” in which Petitioner 4 states, “enclosed is [the] filing fee for habeas” and request the Court “reopen” his case. 5 [ECF No. 9.] But again, Petitioner did not submit the filing fee but rather a “Request for 6 Trust Account Withdraw” which does not include an approval signature. Id. at 2. To the 7 extent Petitioner is asking the Court to deduct a filing fee from his trust account, the Court 8 does not have the ability to do so. Nor can the Court to order prison officials to process a 9 payment without further action from Petitioner because the Court does not have jurisdiction 10 over those officials. See Bradford v. Pickett, 2021 WL 4060532, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 11 2021) (explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel an action by prison trust 12 account officials).1 13 Finally, the Court declines to reopen the case or sua sponte extend time for Petitioner 14 to submit the filing fee because review of the Petition shows it is subject to dismissal. In 15 his only claim, Petitioner argues the imposition of certain “nonpunitive fines and fees” as 16 part of his sentence are “invalid.” [ECF No. 1 at 6, 8.] But “[t]he writ of habeas corpus is 17 limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 18 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). As 19 such, Petitioner’s challenge to the imposition of fines and fees “lack[] any nexus” his 20 custody. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2010). Because “the elimination or 21 alteration of a money judgment . . . does not directly impact—and is not directed at the 22 23 24 1 While the Operations Manual for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does not 25 specifically reference federal court filing fees, it requires inmates seeking to pay state court filing fees to submit a Form 193 Trust Account Withdrawal Order to the facility’s trust office for approval. Cal. Dep’t 26 of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Operations Manual, § 14010.19.1 (manual updated through Jan. 1, 2022), available at https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/cdcr-regulations/dom-toc (“The fee is to be charged to 27 the inmate’s trust fund. Inmates shall fill out a CDC Form 193, Trust Account Withdrawal Order, specifically identifying the purpose of the withdrawal, the parties associated with the action, and the court 28 | || source of the restraint on—[Petitioner’s] liberty,” the Court finds that the Petition is subject 2 ||to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.; see also Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 3 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In general, courts hold that the imposition of a fine . . . is 4 ||merely a collateral consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ 5 || requirement.’’). 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to reopen the action, and as such, it 7 ||remains DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 11, 2025 11 é 12 B Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28