Beck v. Covello ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JASON MICHAEL BECK, Case No. 20-cv-01894-YGR (PR) 5 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 6 7 PATRICK COVELLO, Warden, Respondent. 8 9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Petitioner, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 11 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a $10,000 restitution fine entered by the Contra 12 Costa County Superior Court in June 2009 as part of his twenty-one years to life sentence for 13 second degree murder. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915. Dkts. 2, 7. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 17 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 18 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 19 Section 2254(a) uses the term “in custody” twice, with two different requirements. Bailey 20 v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). The first usage (i.e., that the petition be filed “‘in 21 behalf of a person in custody’“) requires that there be a restraint on the petitioner’s liberty. Id. at 22 978-79. The second usage (i.e., that the application may be entertained “‘only on the ground that 23 he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States’“) requires 24 “a nexus between the petitioner’s claim and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Id. at 979-80. 25 For the second requirement to be satisfied, success on the claim must result in a change in the 26 restraint on the petitioner’s liberty. Id. at 980. 27 Petitioner’s claims, which are challenging only the restitution component of his sentence, 1 restitution fine to be set aside but would not affect any restraint on his liberty. See id. at 980-81 2 || (imprisoned petitioner failed to satisfy custody requirement for his petition challenging only the 3 || restitution component of his sentence because the “elimination or alteration of a money judgment, 4 || does not directly impact—and is not directed at the source of the restraint on—his liberty” as long 5 as he has to serve the rest of his prison sentence in the same manner). 6 || Il. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for want 8 of “in custody” jurisdiction. 9 Good cause shown, Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 10 || U.S.C. § 1915 is GRANTED. Dkts. 2, 7. 11 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 12 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 7. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: June 3, 2020 3 15 16 Lr pore Jl pbh=Iltec /YONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS © United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28