Herndon v. State of California
- Thompson
- 3:23-cv-01163
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Herndon v. State of California, Judge Thompson dismissed Gerrod Herndon’s habeas petition for lack of custody and denied a certificate of appealability.
Gerrod Herndon’s federal habeas petition was dismissed with prejudice because the court found that he was not in custody for federal habeas purposes. The State of California received judgment in its favor, and the certificate of appealability was denied.
What happened
In Herndon v. State of California, Gerrod Herndon filed a habeas petition without a lawyer. He said he was not currently in custody and described several claims involving representation, court filings, civil-rights cases, and alleged misconduct.
The court ruled that federal habeas jurisdiction was unavailable because Herndon was not in custody under the conviction or sentence he challenged when he filed the petition. The court explained that being in custody is required for this type of petition.
Judge Thompson dismissed the petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the State of California, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Herndon v. State of California · No. 3:23-cv-01163
- Thompson
- July 27, 2023
Background
Gerrod Herndon, identified as a former state prisoner currently at All Saints Extended Care, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a lawyer. He had paid the filing fee. On the petition form, he answered “N/A” to questions about a conviction and stated that he was not currently in custody serving a term. He referred to a 2021 “PC 4813 pardon,” prior civil-rights cases in federal court, and a petition pending in Marin County Superior Court.
Herndon described claims involving alleged inadequate representation, state-court writ filings that he said were not ruled on, civil-rights provisions, alleged illegal enhancements, and a request to recover $100,000 for alleged misconduct. The opinion does not provide further factual detail about the underlying state proceedings or explain the legal meaning of each description in the petition.
Court’s analysis
Federal habeas jurisdiction allows a court to consider a petition from a person who is “in custody” under a state-court judgment or otherwise detained in violation of federal law. The court stated that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed, and that the custody requirement is jurisdictional.
Because Herndon was not in custody within the meaning of either 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), the court concluded that it lacked federal habeas jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the petition on that jurisdictional ground rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction and denied a certificate of appealability. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the State of California and against Herndon and to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.