Liban Abdi v. People of the State of California

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIBAN ABDI, Case No.: 26-cv-67-RSH-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On January 6, 2026, petitioner Liban Abdi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks to collaterally 20 attack a conviction he sustained in California Superior Court for a Vehicle Code infraction, 21 for which the court imposed a 30-day suspension of his driver’s license. Id. at 3. Petitioner 22 states that following his conviction, he has sought and been denied review in both the 23 California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Id. 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 25 Courts provides that upon the filing of a petition, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition 26 and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 27 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” 28 // 1 Applying this standard, it appears plainly from the Petition that Petitioner is not 2 ||entitled to habeas relief. Section 2254 provides that a district court shall “entertain an 3 application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 4 ||judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 5 || Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The “in custody” 6 || requirement is jurisdictional. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). “In general, 7 ||courts hold that the ... revocation of a license is merely a collateral consequence of 8 ||conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ requirement.” Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 9 || F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Jones v. Grant, 5 F. App’x 836, 838 (10th Cir. 10 2001) (holding that the “suspension or revocation of [plaintiffs] driver’s license does not 11 |/render [him] ‘in custody’ for the purposes of § 2254”); Harts v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95, 96- 12 ||97 (7th Cir. 1984) (“We recognize that, in our society, loss of driving privileges may entail 13 || hardship. However, suspension of driving privileges is not the sort of severe restraint on 14 || individual livery for which habeas corpus relief is reserved.”) (cleaned up); Westberry v. 15 || Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (Sth Cir. 1970) (“We can find no decision by the Supreme 16 |/Court nor by this circuit which would allow federal courts to take habeas corpus 17 || jurisdiction under § 2254 when the petitioner has applied for the writ after suffering a fine 18 || and the revocation of the right to drive on the state’s highways.’’). Here, Petitioner’s license 19 not revoked, but temporarily suspended; and in any event, the 30-day period of 20 suspension has long passed. Petitioner is not “in custody” for purposes of seeking habeas 21 ||relief, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his Petition. 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The 23 || Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 7, 2026 Johut C [nad 17 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 28