Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett v. Jaime Taft

W.D. Washington

Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett v. Jaime Taft

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided June 16, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-01515·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 2:26-CV-1515-JHC-DWC Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JAIME TAFT, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On April 16, 2026, Petitioner Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett filed a proposed federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Easten District of Washington. Dkt. 1. On May 4, 2026, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Dkt. 9. Petitioner moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on June 2, 2026. Dkt. 12. The Court has granted Petitioner leave to proceed IFP and has reviewed the Petition. The Court finds Petitioner has not sufficiently shown he meets the “in custody” requirements of § 2254.1 Therefore, the Court declines to direct Respondent to answer and 1 Though Petitioner has filed his petition under § 2241, the Ninth Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White directs Petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on or before July 17, 2026. I. Background Petitioner challenges a 2023 judgment and sentence arising from a Snohomish County

Superior Court conviction. Dkt. 1. In the Petition, Petitioner states he is no longer in custody and requests the Court vacate his 2023 conviction. Id. II. Discussion Based on the information contained in the Petition, it appears Petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirements. “The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2247(c)(3)). A petitioner must be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence under attack when he files his federal petition. Id. at 490-91. The “in custody” requirement is met when a petitioner “is subject to a significant restraint upon his

liberty ‘not shared by the public generally.’” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 822 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240 (1963)). When the conviction or sentence under attack has fully expired at the time the petition is filed, the petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirement. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Further, a petitioner is not “in custody” under a conviction after the sentence imposed has fully expired merely because the prior conviction could be used to enhance a sentence imposed for a future conviction. Id. at 493; see also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001). The petitioner

v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore properly construed as one brought pursuant to § 2254. bears the burden of establishing the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Dow v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, it appears Petitioner entered a felony diversion agreement and completed the program in December of 2022. See Dkt. 2. In the Petition, Petitioner states his judgment and

sentence was completed in July 2023. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner did not file the Petition until April 2026. See Dkt. 1. There is no indication he is “in custody” or serving a term of community custody. See Dkts. 1, 2. Therefore, based on the Petition, Petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner must show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. III. Instructions to Petitioner and the Clerk of Court If Petitioner intends to pursue this habeas action, he must file a response to this Order to Show Cause on or before July 17, 2026. If Petitioner fails to adequately address the issues raised herein, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to provide Petitioner with a copy of this Order.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2026. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 2:26-CV-1515-JHC-DWC Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JAIME TAFT, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On April 16, 2026, Petitioner Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett filed a proposed federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Easten District of Washington. Dkt. 1. On May 4, 2026, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Dkt. 9. Petitioner moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on June 2, 2026. Dkt. 12. The Court has granted Petitioner leave to proceed IFP and has reviewed the Petition. The Court finds Petitioner has not sufficiently shown he meets the “in custody” requirements of § 2254.1 Therefore, the Court declines to direct Respondent to answer and 1 Though Petitioner has filed his petition under § 2241, the Ninth Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment[.]” White directs Petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on or before July 17, 2026. I. Background Petitioner challenges a 2023 judgment and sentence arising from a Snohomish County

Superior Court conviction. Dkt. 1. In the Petition, Petitioner states he is no longer in custody and requests the Court vacate his 2023 conviction. Id. II. Discussion Based on the information contained in the Petition, it appears Petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirements. “The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2247(c)(3)). A petitioner must be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence under attack when he files his federal petition. Id. at 490-91. The “in custody” requirement is met when a petitioner “is subject to a significant restraint upon his

liberty ‘not shared by the public generally.’” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 822 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240 (1963)). When the conviction or sentence under attack has fully expired at the time the petition is filed, the petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirement. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Further, a petitioner is not “in custody” under a conviction after the sentence imposed has fully expired merely because the prior conviction could be used to enhance a sentence imposed for a future conviction. Id. at 493; see also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001). The petitioner

v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore properly construed as one brought pursuant to § 2254. bears the burden of establishing the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Dow v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, it appears Petitioner entered a felony diversion agreement and completed the program in December of 2022. See Dkt. 2. In the Petition, Petitioner states his judgment and

sentence was completed in July 2023. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner did not file the Petition until April 2026. See Dkt. 1. There is no indication he is “in custody” or serving a term of community custody. See Dkts. 1, 2. Therefore, based on the Petition, Petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner must show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. III. Instructions to Petitioner and the Clerk of Court If Petitioner intends to pursue this habeas action, he must file a response to this Order to Show Cause on or before July 17, 2026. If Petitioner fails to adequately address the issues raised herein, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to provide Petitioner with a copy of this Order.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2026. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett v. Jaime Taft, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett v. Jaime Taft (Kyle Raymond Lee Burnett v. Jaime Taft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related