Alem v. Bird

Background

Daniel Alem sought federal habeas relief from a restitution fine imposed by a state court after his convictions for attempted murder, attempted robbery, and assault with a firearm. The state court imposed a sentence of 32 years to life. Alem’s only claim in this petition was that the restitution fine violated state and federal law.

Alem had previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging the convictions and sentence in a prior related proceeding, No. 15-cv-03649-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal.). That petition was denied on the merits, judgment was entered for the respondent, the Ninth Circuit declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court denied Alem’s petition for review.

Analysis

The court explained that federal habeas relief is available to a person in state custody only for a violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Habeas relief generally addresses the fact or duration of confinement and seeks release or a shorter period of confinement.

The court held that Alem’s restitution claim was not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. Success on the claim would not void the verdict or reduce his sentence, and a monetary fine is not a sufficiently significant restraint on liberty to satisfy the custody requirement for habeas jurisdiction.

The court separately held that, even if the restitution claim could be considered in habeas, Alem’s petition was a second or successive petition. Under the federal habeas statute, a petitioner must obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals before filing such a petition in the district court. The court found that Alem had not shown he received that authorization. The court also stated that, even if the other barriers did not apply, the petition would likely be untimely because it was filed in 2021, after Alem’s 2012 conviction, beyond the one-year filing deadline.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the petition. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of Landon Bird, and close the file. The court granted Alem’s motions to proceed without paying filing fees. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Alem had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct.