Rider v. Frierson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01831
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 LAWRENCE RIDER, Case No. 2:19-cv-01831-RFB-NJK

6 Petitioner, ORDER 7 v.

8 JASON FRIERSON, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 12 In this habeas corpus action, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the pro se petitioner, 13 Lawrence Rider, who is on parole serving a life sentence for sexual assault, challenges 14 the requirement that he register as a sexual offender pursuant to Nevada law. 15 Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss 16 on the ground that Rider’s claims are not cognizable in this habeas corpus action. 17 In 1984, Rider was convicted of sexual assault in a Nevada court and sentenced 18 to life in prison. See Judgment of Conviction, Exh. 12 (ECF No. 16-12). Consequently, 19 Rider is subject to sex offender registration requirements under Nevada law. According 20 to Rider, in 2007 the state law was amended, and he contends that the new requirements 21 are unconstitutional. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). Rider claims 22 that the new registration requirements violate his right to “freedom from attainder, pains 23 and penalties” under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, his right to freedom from 24 unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, his right to due 25 process of law under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his right to freedom 26 from involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. See id. In addition, on June 27 25, 2020, Rider filed a motion for leave to amend his petition to add a claim that 1 1, Section 10, of the United States Constitution. See Motion to Amend Petition (ECF No. 2 26). 3 Respondents filed their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) on April 3, 2020. Rider filed 4 an opposition to that motion, and Respondents replied (ECF Nos. 15, 25). In their motion 5 to dismiss, Respondents argue that Rider’s claims are not cognizable in this federal 6 habeas corpus action because he does not challenge his custody and does not seek relief 7 from custody. See Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12), pp. 4–5. This argument is well taken. 8 The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to 9 entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons claiming to be in custody in violation 10 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); see 11 also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam). While Rider is on parole 12 (see Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), p. 2), and therefore “in custody” 13 pursuant to the judgment of a state court (see Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 237– 14 43 (1963)), he does not, in his habeas petition, challenge that custody; rather, in this case 15 he challenges the sex offender registration requirements that have been imposed upon 16 him. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1); Motion to Amend Petition (ECF 17 No. 26). Sex offender registration requirements do not constitute custody within the 18 meaning of the habeas corpus statute. See Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241– 42 19 (9th Cir. 1999) (sex offender registration requirements do not constitute custody); 20 Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir.1998) (same). Therefore, Rider’s 21 petition is not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus action. See United States v. 22 Kramer,195 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1999), as amended (Nov. 18, 1999) (habeas 23 challenge to restitution order not cognizable despite the petitioner being in prison, 24 because claim did not challenge custody). The Court will grant Respondents’ motion to 25 dismiss and dismiss this action on that ground. 26 The Court need not, and the Court elects not to, reach the other arguments made 27 by Respondents in their motion to dismiss. 1 The Court will deny Rider’s motion for leave to amend his petition to add a claim 2 || challenging the sex offender registration requirements based on the ex post facto clause 3 || of the federal constitution, because such amendment would be futile, given the ground 4 || on which this action is dismissed. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition (ECF 6 || No. 26) is DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is 8 || GRANTED. This action is dismissed. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because jurists of reason would not find this 10 || ruling debatable or wrong, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter 12 || judgment accordingly. 13 14 DATED THIS 14" day of January, 2021. 15 16 As 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28