Jacobs v. Allen
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-07846
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jacobs v. Allen, Judge Orrick dismissed Jacobs’s complaint, ordered a habeas petition by April 4, 2022, and granted his request to proceed without paying fees.
Kantee W. Jacobs was required to replace his complaint with a properly completed § 2254 habeas petition to continue seeking release from custody. Trent Allen was designated the sole respondent; Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were no longer listed as respondents in the habeas action.
What happened
In Jacobs v. Allen, Kantee W. Jacobs sought release from custody. He filed a civil-rights complaint alleging that Proposition 57 was an unconstitutional law applied after the fact and that he was denied due process, but he did not provide key details about his conviction or release date.
The court treated the complaint as a petition challenging his state custody and dismissed the complaint. It ordered Jacobs to file a petition on the court’s form by April 4, 2022, with specific facts supporting his request. The court also granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees, directed the clerk to list Trent Allen as the only respondent, and directed the clerk to terminate pending motions.
Judge William H. Orrick stated that failing to file the required petition by the deadline would lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Jacobs v. Allen · No. 3:21-cv-07846
- William Orrick
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Kantee W. Jacobs filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gavin Newsom, identified as the Governor of California, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Jacobs alleged that Proposition 57 was an ex post facto law—one applied in a way that unlawfully worsens the legal consequences of earlier conduct—and that he was being denied due process. He sought release from custody.
The complaint did not provide specific facts, including the date or place of Jacobs’s conviction, his expected release date, or how he calculated that date. Because the requested relief was release from custody, the court construed the action as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure for challenging state-court custody.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a federal court may consider a § 2254 petition alleging custody violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It also stated that summary dismissal is appropriate when habeas allegations are vague or conclusory, among other circumstances. The court concluded that Jacobs needed to provide specific facts showing why he was entitled to release, including exactly how Proposition 57’s application to his sentence was unconstitutional.
The court further determined that Trent Allen, identified as the warden of the prison where Jacobs was housed, was the sole proper respondent because he had day-to-day control over Jacobs and was the person who could produce him. The clerk was directed to change the docket to reflect a § 2254 habeas action, replace “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” with “Petitioner” and “Respondent,” and list Allen as the sole respondent.
Disposition
The complaint was DISMISSED. Jacobs was ordered to file a habeas petition on the court’s form by April 4, 2022, using the caption and civil case number specified in the order and providing specific facts supporting his entitlement to release. The order states that failure to file by that date would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Jacobs’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fee, was GRANTED. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions. Judge William H. Orrick issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.