Meyn v. Napa County District Attorney

Background

Jasen Frank Meyn filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging California convictions imposed in 2010 by the Napa County Superior Court. The court ordered Meyn to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed because he was not “in custody” as required for federal review under section 2254. Meyn filed a response.

Meyn admitted that he was not in custody. The four-year sentence imposed in 2010 had expired, and the opinion states that nothing indicated he was on parole or otherwise subject to court supervision. Meyn argued that continuing consequences of his convictions—such as housing and employment discrimination because he is a felon, inability to own a firearm, arson registration, and possible restrictions on international travel—satisfied the custody requirement.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a person must be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. This requirement is jurisdictional, meaning that the court cannot hear the petition unless the requirement is met.

The court rejected Meyn’s reading of Maleng v. Cook. It explained that the petitioner in Carafas v. LaVallee met the custody requirement because he filed his petition while actually incarcerated under the sentence he challenged, not because of the conviction’s collateral consequences. The court also found that Jones v. Cunningham did not help Meyn because that petitioner was on parole when he filed his action, and that United States v. Morgan concerned a different procedure for challenging a federal conviction and was not relevant to Meyn’s section 2254 petition.

The court further stated that even serious collateral consequences cannot cure the absence of custody at the time of filing. It cited decisions holding that registration requirements and the possibility of a future sentence enhancement do not constitute custody when the challenged sentence has fully expired.

Ruling

The court concluded that Meyn was not in custody within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal action was dismissed. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment in favor of the respondent and close the file. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Meyn had not shown that reasonable judges would debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.