Torres v. Kernan
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-09112
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Torres v. Kernan, Judge Freeman denied Torres’s reconsideration motion, holding his completed sentence left no custody basis for federal habeas jurisdiction.
Mario Torres, whose request to reopen the dismissal of his federal petition was denied; Scott Kernan remained the respondent.
What happened
Mario Torres, a former state prisoner, asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his petition challenging his state conviction. The court had dismissed the petition because Torres was not in custody when he filed it.
Torres argued that the petition was timely, that he had been in custody when he began state-court proceedings, and that a cited Supreme Court decision did not apply. The court explained that custody is measured when the federal petition is filed, not when state proceedings begin. Because Torres had completed his sentence and parole, no restraint on his liberty remained that the court could change.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for reconsideration under both applicable federal rules. The order said Torres could appeal to the Ninth Circuit and terminated the motion docket.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Kernan · No. 5:22-cv-09112
- Beth Freeman
- May 9, 2023
Background
Mario Torres, a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction from Contra Costa County Superior Court. On April 25, 2023, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Torres was not “in custody” when he filed the federal action. Torres then moved for reconsideration.
Torres’s Arguments
Torres argued that his petition was timely and that he satisfied the custody requirement because he had been in custody when he began state-court proceedings related to exhaustion. He also argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Maleng v. Cook did not apply because the facts were different.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that timeliness was not considered and was not the reason for the dismissal. It held that the custody requirement is measured when the federal petition is filed, not when state proceedings begin. Under Section 2254, the petitioner must be subject to a restraint on liberty, and success on the petition must be capable of changing that restraint. The court found that Torres had been released, completed parole, completed the later sentence, and was no longer under court supervision. Therefore, success on his petition could not change any existing restraint on his liberty, and the court had no jurisdiction.
The court also considered reconsideration under Rule 59(e), which permits relief in limited circumstances such as newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. Torres did not identify newly discovered evidence or a change in law, and the court found no clear error. Under Rule 60(b), which provides other limited grounds for relief from a judgment, Torres did not establish a qualifying mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, invalidity of the judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another extraordinary reason for relief.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Torres’s motion for reconsideration. The order stated that Torres may appeal to the Ninth Circuit and terminated Docket No. 12. The opinion did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.