Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2021

Lafluer v. People of the State of California

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:20-cv-08656
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lafluer v. People of California, Judge Chhabria dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Demenico Lafluer’s federal habeas petition was dismissed with prejudice; the People of the State of California were the respondent.

What happened

In Lafluer v. People of the State of California, Demenico Lafluer filed a petition asking for federal review of his state custody. He represented himself.

The court questioned whether Lafluer was in custody when he filed the petition, as federal law requires for this type of case. It ordered him to submit a declaration and supporting evidence, but he did not respond within 28 days or communicate with the court.

Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied a certificate of appealability, and ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lafluer v. People of the State of California · No. 3:20-cv-08656
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
June 30, 2021

Background

On December 28, 2020, Demenico Lafluer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition under that statute seeks federal review of a person’s state custody. Lafluer represented himself.

The petition indicated that Lafluer might not have been in custody when he filed it. The court explained that federal courts have jurisdiction over this type of petition only when the petitioner is in custody at the time of filing. The court described custody as incarceration or a court-ordered restriction on freedom of movement connected to the conviction or sentence being challenged.

Court’s Order

On February 26, 2021, the court ordered Lafluer to file, within 28 days, a declaration explaining how he was in custody on December 8, 2020, and to provide exhibits showing that custody. The order stated that failure to submit the declaration would result in dismissal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

More than 28 days passed, and Lafluer did not file the required declaration or communicate with the court. The court therefore dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, stating that reasonable judges would not debate whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.