Kingsley v. Commonwealth of MA ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    August 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



    ___________________


    No. 92-2310




    LAWRENCE KINGSLEY,

    Petitioner, Appellant,

    v.

    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,

    Respondents, Appellees.


    __________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ___________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ___________________

    Dr. Lawrence Kingsley on brief pro se.
    _____________________
    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Elisabeth J.
    __________________ _____________
    Medvedow, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
    ________



    __________________

    __________________

















    Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Lawrence Kingsley
    __________ ___ __

    appeals from the dismissal of his petition for relief from

    certain state court traffic convictions under 28 U.S.C.

    2254. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the

    parties' briefs on appeal. We are persuaded that this habeas

    petition was properly dismissed because Kingsley was not "in

    custody" when he filed it, therefore the district court

    lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States
    ___ ____ _____________

    v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5,7 (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ("A
    _______

    monetary fine is not a sufficient restraint on liberty to

    meet the 'in custody' requirement for 2255 purposes);

    Lillios v. State of New Hampshire, 788 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir.
    _______ ______________________

    1986)(per curiam) (modest fines for speeding and license

    suspension "'not the sort of severe[] restraint on individual

    liberty' for which habeas corpus relief is reserved")

    (citations omitted); Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st
    ______ _____

    Cir. 1984).

    Judgment affirmed
    _________________

















    -2-