Jellison v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Office

Background

Kevin S. Jellison filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a petition asking a court to address allegedly unlawful custody. He paid the filing fee. The respondents listed in the petition included the Sacramento County Sheriffs Office and others.

Jellison alleged that he was being held against his will and unlawfully in the custody of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sacramento County Jail, Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Curtis M. Fiorini, and Napa State Hospital. The petition referred to various constitutional amendments, the Uniform Commercial Code, the All Writs Act, and other authorities. It sought his release from the Sheriff’s Department, release of alleged commercial-debt credits, and release of proceeds, products, accounts, and fixtures.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim because it was unclear what relief Jellison sought. The court distinguished between a request to be released from custody, a request for redress of grievances, and a request for release of commercial debt.

The court stated that a request for release from custody should be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2554(a) if the custody resulted from a state-court judgment, or under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) if it did not. In either situation, the requested relief would be available only if the custody violated the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court said that claims seeking redress of grievances or release of commercial debt could not be brought in a custody petition because they did not challenge the legality of the custody.

The court also held that the All Writs Act did not control. It explained that the Act provides residual authority to issue writs when no other statute addresses the issue, but the specific custody statutes addressed Jellison’s alleged unlawful custody.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because Jellison might be able to state a claim if he identified whether he sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) or § 2554(a) and explained how his custody violated the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Jellison was given 28 days from the order’s date to file an amended petition. The amended filing had to use the case caption and number from the order and include the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. The court stated that the amended petition would replace the earlier petitions, that omitted claims would be waived, and that Jellison could not incorporate the earlier petitions by reference. If he did not file on time, the action could be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.