Raybon v. U.S. Federal Court

Background

Goldy Raybon, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court date concerning a federal warrant. The petition stated that Raybon had pleaded no contest to animal-cruelty charges in Sacramento Superior Court, had been sentenced on March 8, 2023, and had not appealed the conviction. The court stated that Raybon was housed at Valley State Prison and later identified the confinement location as Chowchilla in Madera County.

Habeas analysis

The court found the petition deficient because it was unclear what type of habeas challenge Raybon intended to bring. The court explained that the petition did not appear to challenge the lawfulness of Raybon’s state custody, so it did not appear to qualify for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the statute generally used to challenge state custody. The court also stated that § 2255 did not appear to apply because Raybon did not appear to be in federal custody or to have been convicted of a federal crime. The court further concluded that the other possible basis, § 2241, did not appear to apply for the same reason.

The court also addressed the requirement that a habeas petitioner be “in custody” in a way connected to the challenged claim. Any successful challenge to the federal warrant would have to change Raybon’s state custody for that requirement to be satisfied. The court said that this connection was not apparent from the sparse allegations. If Raybon was attempting to challenge the warrant before a later federal criminal prosecution, the court said the action was premature.

The court explained that habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement generally must be filed in the federal district where the prisoner is confined. Because Raybon was confined in Chowchilla, in Madera County, and both Madera and Sacramento Counties are within the Eastern District of California, a claim challenging current state custody would need to be transferred there. The court did not transfer the matter at this stage and required any amended petition to explain the legal basis for jurisdiction in the Northern District.

Filing-fee motion

Raybon moved to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that motion because the records showed an average monthly account deposit of $190.27 and an average monthly balance of $346.26 during the six months before the petition was filed. The court ordered Raybon to pay the $5 filing fee within the time set by the order or face dismissal for nonpayment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition using the court’s form. The amended petition had to include the case caption and number, the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page, and be filed within 28 days after the order was filed. The court stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. Raybon could instead file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Judge Edward J. Davila denied the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed Raybon to submit proof of payment of the $5 fee within 28 days.