Keller v. Las Vegas District Court

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 17, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 GUSTAVE ERIC KELLER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02075-RFB-BNM

10 Petitioner, Order Dismissing Petition v. 11 LAS VEGAS DISTRICT COURT, 12 Respondent. 13 14 Gustave Eric Keller has submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. (ECF 15 No. 2.) He seeks to challenge a Nevada state judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea,1 16 for violation of a protective order. However, a § 2254 habeas corpus petition is available to 17 challenge a state-court judgment on the ground that a petitioner is in custody in violation of the 18 U.S. Constitution or federal law. § 2254(a). Keller indicates in his petition that he was released 19 from state custody in March 2022. (See ECF No. 2 at 2.)2 He dispatched his petition for mailing 20 in December 2023. (See id. at 8.) Federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions 21 unless the petitioner is “‘under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is 22 filed.’” See, e.g., Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Resendiz v. Kovensky, 23 416 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2005)).3 Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

24 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 2 The Nevada Department of Corrections website also reflects that Keller has discharged his sentence. (See 25 https://ofdsearch.doc.nv.gov/form.php, last visited January 16, 2024.) 26 3 The term “custody” encompasses not only individuals subject to immediate physical imprisonment, but also individuals subject to restraints not shared by the public generally that significantly confine and restrain 27 freedom. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 510 (1982). See also, e.g., Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183-1184 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that a habeas petitioner challenging Washington's sex-offender registration law did not meet the “in custody” requirement because 1 The court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the 2 dismissal of this petition. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED for lack of 4 jurisdiction. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7

9 DATED: 17 January 2024. 10

11 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27