Hanoian v. Santa Cruz County Superior Court

Background

Danny-John Hanoian filed this action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a person in state custody to challenge that custody on constitutional or other federal-law grounds. The court originally treated a filing labeled as a notice of appeal as an attempted habeas petition because the challenged order came from the Santa Cruz County Superior Court rather than a federal district court. Hanoian later submitted a petition stating that he had been charged with driving with a suspended license, that the state court entered a guilty plea for him in his absence, and that he was sentenced to 38 days of work release.

The court had previously dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. After Hanoian paid the fee, the court vacated that dismissal and judgment and reopened the case.

Court’s analysis

At the initial screening stage, the court identified several possible deficiencies. First, because Hanoian’s 38-day work-release sentence occurred before he filed the action, the court said it appeared that he was no longer “in custody,” a requirement for federal habeas relief under Section 2254. The court directed him to address whether he was currently in state custody under the state-court judgment.

Second, the court explained that a state prisoner generally must exhaust state judicial remedies by giving the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim before seeking federal habeas relief. Hanoian said he had appealed to the California Supreme Court in 2015, but the court observed that the underlying case number indicated the state case began in 2016. The court also found it unclear whether he had exhausted his remedies because he listed the California Supreme Court’s location as Santa Cruz, California.

Third, the court stated that there is no federal constitutional right to drive on public roads without a driver’s license. Hanoian’s petition asserted that he had a right to travel freely, but the court cited a Ninth Circuit decision rejecting a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle without a license.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the petition in this order. Instead, it ordered Hanoian to show cause within 28 days why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction or failure to exhaust state remedies. The court required his response to address his current custody and exhaustion of state remedies and warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal without further notice.