Cynthia Suratos Lorica v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00712
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYNTHIA SURATOS LORICA, Case No. 26-cv-00712-AMO

8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. No. 3 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant the United States’s motion to dismiss Petitioner Cynthia 14 Suratos Lorica’s motion to vacate her conviction. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully 15 considered their arguments therein, as well as the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the 16 United States’s motion to dismiss. 17 Lorica was charged in June 2012 with one count of bank fraud and one count of tax 18 evasion. Information as to Cynthia Lorica, United States v. Lorica, No. 12-cr-488 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19 27, 2013). On July 17, 2012, Lorica pleaded guilty to both charged counts pursuant to a plea 20 agreement. Plea Agreement, United States v. Lorica, No. 12-cr-488 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013). 21 The Court sentenced Lorica to eighteen months in prison and three years of supervised release on 22 each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Judgment at 2, 5, United States v. Lorica, No. 23 12-cr-488 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013). Lorica was released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons 24 Custody on August 15, 2014, and began serving her three-year term of supervised release. Dkt. 25 No. 3 at 7. Lorica’s supervised release term ended on August 14, 2017. Dkt. No. 3-1 ¶¶ 3, 4; Dkt. 26 No. 3-2. 27 On January 22, 2026, Lorica filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her conviction 1 not adequately explain the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Motion to Vacate, 2 United States v. Lorica, No. 12-cr-488 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013). The Court subsequently opened 3 the above-captioned civil case. On March 5, 2026, the Government filed a motion to dismiss. 4 Dkt. No. 3. On March 26, 2026, Lorica filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 4, 5 and the Government’s reply followed on April 9, 2026, Dkt. No. 5. The United States argues (1) 6 the Court lacks jurisdiction because Lorica is no longer in custody and (2) Lorica’s motion is 7 untimely. The Court reaches only the first argument as it is dispositive. 8 In order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to vacate pursuant to 9 Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, the petitioner must be in custody at the time the motion was filed. 10 United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction 11 where petitioner was not in custody at time of filing § 2255 motion, “because th[e] issue [wa]s 12 jurisdictional”). In order to be considered in custody, petitioner must be either incarcerated or on 13 supervised release or probation. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989) (petitioner 14 must be in custody, which can include federal parole, under the conviction or sentence under 15 attack at the time his petition is filed); Reves, 774 F.3d at 565 (dismissing petitioner’s Section 16 2255 motion filed one day after petitioner’s probation ended, because petitioner was no longer in 17 custody at time of filing). 18 Where “the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired,” the person is no 19 longer “in custody” for purposes of a habeas petition, even where they continue to suffer collateral 20 consequences from that conviction. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Outstanding obligations to pay 21 restitution constitute such collateral consequences and do not render a person in custody for 22 habeas purposes. Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In general, 23 courts hold that the imposition of a fine or the revocation of a license is merely a collateral 24 consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ requirement”) (collecting cases). 25 In Lorica’s motion to vacate her conviction, she states that she “is under supervised release 26 which constitutes custody for habeas purposes.” Motion to Vacate, United States v. Lorica, No. 27 12-cr-488 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013). But Lorica was not on supervised release when she filed her ] opposition offers nothing to contradict this fact, nor does it offer any legal basis for the Court to 2 || conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction over her petition. See generally Dkt. No. 4. 3 || Accordingly, the Court must dismiss this action without prejudice. Reves, 774 F.3d at 565. The 4 || Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: April 29, 2026 10 : CELI MARTINEZ-OTGU United States District Judge a 12

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28