Opinion
CIVIL 22-00542 LEK-RT
01-06-2023
IN RE HARDY K. AH PUCK, JR., Petitioner.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1, filed by pro se Petitioner Hardy K. Ah Puck, Jr. (“Ah Puck”). The Petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because Ah Puck was not in custody when he commenced this action. Any request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
I. DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that the Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petition is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.1990).
For this Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition, the petitioner must be “in custody.” As relevant here, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that “a district court shall entertain an application for a 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 (emphases added).
Section 2254(a)'s “first reference to ‘in custody' requires that the habeas petition be filed in behalf of a person in custody.” Munoz v. Smith, 17 F.4th 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). “To satisfy the second requirement, [the petitioner] must be challenging the ‘lawfulness of his custody.'” Id. (citation omitted). Section 2254(a)'s “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional. Id. at 1240.
Here, Ah Puck deposited the Petition in the prison mailing system on December 15, 2022. ECF No. 1 at PageID.15. At that time, however, Ah Puck was not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. Indeed, according to Ah Puck, he was released from custody on May 18, 2022. Id. at PageID.2. Publicly available state court records are consistent with Ah Puck's representation. Those records reflect that a Judgment of Acquittal was entered in State v. Ah Puck, No. 2CPC-21-0000601 (Haw. 2d Cir. Ct.), on May 17, 2022. See Hawaii State Judiciary, https://www.courts.state.hi.us/ (follow “eCourt Kokua*,” select “Click Here to Enter eCourt* Kokua,” select “Case Search,” and enter “2CPC-21-0000601” in “Case ID or Citation Number” field) (last visited Jan. 6, 2023). Thus, Ah Puck was not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment when he commenced this action on December 15, 2022.
At various points in the Petition, Ah Puck refers to Ah Puck v. Jones, Civ. No. 22-00165 SOM-KJM (D. Haw.). ECF No. 1 at PageID.1-2, 4, 6-8. Although Ah Puck asserts that he was convicted and sentenced in that case on May 18, 2022, id. at PageID.1, he is mistaken. The referenced matter was a civil case filed in this district that was dismissed on April 15, 2022. See Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice, Ah Puck, Civ. No. 22-00165 SOM-KJM (D. Haw. Apr. 15, 2022), ECF No. 3. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition because Ah Puck was not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment when the Petition was filed.
II. CONCLUSION
(1) This action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.
(2) Any certificate of appealability is DENIED, because “jurists of reason would” not “find it debatable” that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition.
(3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.