Webb v. Montgomery
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Failure to State a Cognizable Claim on Federal Habeas Petitioner raises only one claim in the Petition—that the trial court improper
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a restitution fine. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim did not affect the legality of the petitioner's confinement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice“For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner failed to comply with the local rule requiring a filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. Furthermore, the court correctly applied the 'in custody' requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), citing Ninth Circuit precedent (Bailey v. Hill) to establish that a challenge to a restitution order, which does not affect the duration or conditions of confinement, does not satisfy the jurisdictional nexus between the claim and unlawful custody. Dismissing without prejudice allows the petitioner to cure the fee defect and potentially amend the petition to state a cognizable claim, which is the appropriate procedural remedy for a pro se litigant who has not yet had the opportunity to cure these defects. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the two independent grounds for dismissal: the procedural failure to pay the fee or file for IFP status, and the substantive lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Bailey v. Hill) which directly addresses the issue of restitution orders in habeas corpus petitions. The reasoning is concise and accurately applies the 'nexus' test to the specific facts of the case (a challenge to a restitution fine).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD DE’VONN WEBB Case No. 20-CV-735 JLS (BGS)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITION 14 WARREN MONTGOMERY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Richard De’Vonn Webb, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted 18 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). 19 For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition. 20 ANALYSIS 21 I. Failure to Satisfy Filing Fee Requirement 22 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must either be accompanied by a $5.00 filing 23 fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 3(a); 28 U.S.C. 24 foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed a motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis. If Petitioner wishes to proceed, he must either pay the $5.00 26 fee or submit adequate proof he cannot pay the fee. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim on Federal Habeas 2 The Petition also must be dismissed because this Court lacks subject-matter 3 jurisdiction. Petitioner raises only one claim in the Petition—that the trial court improperly 4 imposed a restitution fine without sufficient evidence of his ability to pay. See Pet. at 3. 5 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that: 6 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 7 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 8 court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 9 10 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). 11 The requirement that a habeas petitioner be “in custody in violation of [federal law]” 12 is “jurisdictional.” See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 13 Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2241(c)(3)’s requirement that a habeas petitioner be “in custody in violation of the 15 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” is jurisdictional). “The plain meaning 16 of the text of § 2254(a) makes clear that physical custody alone is insufficient to confer 17 jurisdiction.” See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 980. Rather, “[it] explicitly requires a nexus between 18 the petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody.” See id. (emphasis added) 19 (citing Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n. 3 (2000)). If the remedy sought is 20 merely “the elimination or alteration” of a petitioner’s restitutionary obligation, then there 21 is no such nexus between the habeas claim and the petitioner’s purportedly unlawful 22 custody. See id. at 981; see also Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1350–51 (7th Cir. 23 2009) (holding that a petitioner did not satisfy the “in custody” requirement because, even 24 if he prevailed on his ineffective assistance claim, “the only possible benefit [would] be a 25 lower payment to his victim”), quoted with approval in Bailey, 599 F.3d at 981–82. In 26 such a case, the action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Bailey, 27 599 F.3d at 984. 28 / / / ] Here, Petitioner’s only claim challenges the restitution order. Even if Petitioner were 2 || to prevail on this claim, he would not obtain early release from custody; instead, he would 3 || be entitled only to “the elimination or alteration of a money judgment.” See id. at 981. 4 ||Consequently, the “nexus” between these claims and illegal custody is lacking. See id. 5 || Because Petitioner’s claim does not affect the legality of his confinement, this Court lacks 6 || subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. See Bailey, 599 F.3d at 984. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 ||the Petition for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and for lack of subject-matter 10 jurisdiction. Should Plaintiff wish to reopen this action, he MUST SUBMIT on or before 11 24, 2020, (1) an amended petition remedying the jurisdictional defects identified 12 above, and (2) either (a) a copy of this Order along with the requisite $5.00 filing fee, or 13 ||(b) a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 ||Dated: April 22, 2020 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 7 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28