Arnold v. County of San Diego Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Chad Arnold filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging a child-support order and a related state warrant. The court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Arnold was not in custody, and denied his remaining motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of habeas corpus petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction“Because Arnold is not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State,” this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his habeas petition. See Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 1994). So, the Court DISMISSES that petition for lack of jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement that federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available only to persons 'in custody.' The order recites that Arnold is not a state prisoner, does not reside in a correctional facility, and does not allege constructive custody (such as parole). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition. |
Denial of remaining motions as moot“And Arnold’s remaining motions are DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the underlying habeas petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, any ancillary motions (likely for appointment of counsel or similar procedural relief) became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect. It cites the relevant statute and Ninth Circuit precedent to support the dismissal. The factual findings (not a prisoner, no constructive custody alleged) are sufficient to support the legal conclusion.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Chad ARNOLD, Case No.: 23-cv-1396-AGS-KSC 4 Petitioner,] ORDER DISMISSING WRIT OF 5 HABEAS CORPUS PETITION (ECF 1) AND DENYING AS MOOT 6 || COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REMAINING MOTIONS 7 CORPORATION, et al., (ECF 2, 3, 5, 6) Respondents. 8 9 In his habeas petition, Chad Arnold challenges a child-support order and a state- 10 court warrant for failing to comply with that order. (See generally ECF 1.) But writs of 11 ||habeas corpus extend only to those “in custody,” and Arnold does not appear to qualify. 12 || See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 475 (1976) (explaining the history of writs of habeas 13 || corpus); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (limiting federal courts’ habeas review to “the ground that he 14 |lis in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). 15 |}Arnold lists a mailing address in Vista, California, that does not correspond to any 16 || correctional facility. (See ECF 1, at 1.) And no one by his name is a current California state 17 || prisoner, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 18 |/inmate locator. See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (last visited Sept. 6, 19 || 2023). Nor does he allege that he was on parole or otherwise in constructive custody. 20 Because Arnold is not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State,” this Court 21 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his habeas petition. See Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 22 889 (9th Cir. 1994). So, the Court DISMISSES that petition for lack of jurisdiction. 23 || And Arnold’s remaining motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close 24 || this case. 25 Dated: September 6, 2023 26 7 Hon. Andtew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28