Jellison v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Office

Background

Kevin S. Jellison filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus while representing himself. In the amended petition, he alleged that he was detained and jailed without a warrant, that his right to remain silent was denied, that he was falsely identified and imprisoned, that public servants charged him without properly giving him the required warnings, and that his due-process rights were violated.

The earlier petition had been dismissed with leave to amend because it failed to state a claim and did not clearly identify the relief sought. The amended petition stated that Jellison had been arraigned but did not identify a sentence or crime for which he was sentenced. It also stated that he had not sought relief in any proceeding other than an appeal. The opinion states that he was in the custody of Napa State Hospital.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 generally challenges custody imposed under a state-court judgment. Section 2241 may apply when a person is in state custody without being held under a state-court judgment, including in some pretrial situations.

The court identified several deficiencies. First, if Jellison was not being held after a jury verdict, his claim about a failure to provide the required warnings might not be a claim that can be decided through federal habeas proceedings. The court found it unclear how that alleged violation caused Jellison to be in custody.

Second, the court said the claim appeared not to have been exhausted. Exhaustion generally requires giving the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each claim before seeking federal habeas relief. Jellison reported that he had not sought relief in any other proceeding.

Third, the court found it unclear why Jellison had named the Sacramento County Sheriffs Office as a respondent. The court stated that a claim that the office violated his federal civil rights should instead be brought in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DISMISSED the amended habeas petition with leave to amend. The court ordered Jellison to file a second amended petition within 28 days. That petition must explain the reason for his custody, how the custody violates federal law or the Constitution, and whether he exhausted state-court remedies. It must include all claims he wishes to present and may not incorporate the earlier petitions by reference. The court stated that the action may be dismissed without further notice if he does not timely file the second amended petition. The order did not decide whether Jellison’s underlying allegations were legally valid.