Torres v. Kernan
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03159
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Torres v. Kernan, Judge Hamilton dismissed Torres’s habeas petition with leave to amend because its restitution challenge did not meet the federal custody requirement.
Mario Torres, whose petition was dismissed with leave to amend; Scott Kernan was the named defendant.
What happened
In Torres v. Kernan, Mario Torres, a former California prisoner representing himself, challenged restitution imposed during his 2018 resentencing. He said the resentencing occurred without his knowledge or consent, although the written plea agreement stated that he understood restitution would be required.
The court explained that federal review of a state conviction requires a connection between the claim and a restraint on the person’s freedom. Because Torres challenged only restitution, success could change the money obligation but would not change his custody or other parole conditions. The court also asked him to explain how requiring payment that he had agreed to in his plea bargain created a federal claim.
The court granted Torres’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the petition with leave to amend. The amended petition was due by July 8, 2020. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed Torres to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Kernan · No. 4:20-cv-03159
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 9, 2020
Background
Mario Torres, a former California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court sentence. He stated that he pleaded guilty on February 5, 2015, and was resentenced on October 3, 2018, without his knowledge or consent. He said restitution was imposed during resentencing. The opinion states that the written plea agreement indicated Torres understood that conviction on the underlying charge would require him to pay restitution. Torres was no longer in custody when he filed the petition.
Claim and legal standard
Torres alleged that the restitution order violated the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court explained that the federal habeas statute has two custody requirements. The petitioner must be subject to a restraint on liberty, and the claim must be connected to the unlawful nature of that restraint. Success must result in a change in the restraint on the petitioner’s liberty.
The court concluded that Torres’s challenge to only the restitution component of his sentence did not meet the second custody requirement. Setting aside the restitution obligation might change a money judgment, but it would not affect a restraint on liberty. The court noted that Torres was no longer incarcerated. It also stated that, if he remained on parole, setting aside restitution would not affect his other parole conditions or the restraints those conditions imposed. The opinion references Torres’s separate case concerning his parole and its conditions.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend so Torres could provide more information under the stated legal standards. It also directed him to explain how requiring restitution that he had agreed to pay under the plea bargain could support a viable federal claim. The court granted the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. Any amended petition had to be filed by July 8, 2020, and marked “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. The court warned that failure to amend by the deadline could result in dismissal and directed Torres to report address changes and comply with court orders. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.