Opinion
Case No. CV 13-5982-DSF(AJW)
09-03-2013
MR. ALDEN ALEXANDER THOMAS, SR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN TIM J. OCHOA, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISMISSING PETITION
Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody on August 15, 2013. Petitioner alleges that his state and federal constitutional rights have been violated by the state's imposition of a ten percent administrative fee on his restitution order. [Petition at 3, attached pages 3A-3C]. For the following reasons, the petition is subject to summary dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Federal habeas relief is potentially available where a prisoner attacks the validity or duration of his confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Section 2254, however, "does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner's in-custody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence." Bailey v. Hill, 599 F. 3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2010); see Flores v. Hickman, 533 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1085 (C.D.Cal. 2008) ("A challenge to a restitution order does not affect the duration of a prisoner's custody. As a result, a federal court cannot consider such a challenge on habeas review.").
Petitioner does not challenge the validity or duration of his confinement. Rather, he seeks relief from a restitution order. Because petitioner's sole claim for relief is not cognizable on federal habeas review, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bailey, 599 F.3d at 981 (explaining that there is no jurisdiction over a state prisoner's challenge to a restitution order because such a challenge "lacks any nexus, as required by the plain text of § 2254(a), to his custody").
It is so ordered.
_____________
Dale S. Fischer
United States District Judge