Opinion
No. C 02-4848 SI (pr)
November 13, 2002
JUDGMENT
This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL INTRODUCTION
Ronald Gene Coleman, currently incarcerated at the Elmwood Facility in Milpitas, California, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His pleading is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court also considers a subpoena Coleman has prepared in This action.
BACKGROUND
This court has received numerous pleadings from Coleman — most of which the court has been unable to understand. See. e.g., Coleman v. County of Santa Clara, C 02-1303 SI, Coleman v. County of Santa Clara, C 02-1929 SI, and Coleman v. United States of America, No. C 02-4711 SI. Coleman has once again filed a deficient pleading. His current petition does not provide a narrative description of his claims but instead directs the readers to "See Attached And Transcripts." Petition, p. 6. Attached to the petition is an assortment of miscellaneous documents, the relevance of which is not explained and is not self-evident. Although the attachments to the petition present a puzzle, information in the petition itself shows a fundamental defect in the action, which eliminates the need for the court to deal with the problems presented by the unexplained attachments to the petition. Specifically, Coleman states that he was sentenced on November 6, 2000 to a one-year sentence and is not currently in custody serving this term. Petition, p. 2, responses to questions 1(c) (d).
The court is confident that the habeas petition in Case No. C 02-4848 SI is not an attempted amended petition in Case No. C 02-4711 SI because the petition in C 02-4848 SI was mailed by petitioner on the same day the court issued its order of dismissal with leave to amend in Case No. C 02-4711 SI.
DISCUSSION
A. Review of The Petition
A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A habeas petition may be summarily dismissed "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See id.
Coleman writes that he is not currently in custody as to the judgment under attack. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons "in custody" at the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). This requirement is jurisdictional. See id. A petitioner who files a habeas petition after he has fully served his sentence and who is not subject to court supervision is not "in custody" for the purposes of this court's subject matter jurisdiction and his petition is therefore properly denied. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1001 (1990). Because Coleman is not in custody as to the judgment under attack, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his habeas petition. Having completed his sentence and being no longer in custody, it is simply too late for Coleman to file a habeas petition challenging the conviction.
B. The Subpoena
A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, provides that a "party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise." Before deciding whether a petitioner is entitled to discovery under Rule 6(a) the court must first identify the essential elements of the underlying claim. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. The court must then determine whether the petitioner has shown "good cause" for appropriate discovery to prove his claim. See id. Good cause for discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown "where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.'" Id. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969)).
Coleman has apparently attempted to serve a subpoena on the Santa Clara County Superior Court in connection with this habeas action. The subpoena is improper. Coleman cannot do any discovery in this case unless and until this court permits it, but this court will not permit any discovery because the case is being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The subpoena is quashed. The County of Santa Clara need not respond to Coleman's subpoena. Any efforts by Coleman to enforce the subpoena executed by him on September 24, 2002 (or any other subpoena in this action) will result in sanctions against him.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
1. This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The subpoena executed by Coleman on September 24, 2002 is QUASHED.
3. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he paid the filing fee.