Dow v. Circuit Court of First Circuit Through Huddy, 92-15128
Citation | 995 F.2d 922 |
Decision Date | 10 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-15128,92-15128 |
Parties | Dwight O. DOW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF the FIRST CIRCUIT, through the Honorable Wendell K. HUDDY, Criminal Administrative Judge, et al., Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Earle A. Partington, Partington & Foley, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner-appellant.
Wallace W. Weatherwax, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, Hawaii, for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before: GOODWIN, TANG, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Dow appeals the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, 779 F.Supp. 139. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this petition, holding that mandatory class attendance does not amount to a severe restraint on an individual's liberty and that appellant is therefore not "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We reverse.
Appellant was convicted by a Hawaii state court of one count of driving under the influence. He was sentenced to a $250 fine, a ninety-day suspension of his driver's license, and fourteen hours of attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program. Attendance at the rehabilitation class could be scheduled by appellant over either a three-day or five-day period. Following his exhaustion of state appeals, appellant sought habeas corpus relief on the ground that, in obtaining his conviction, the state had violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
To invoke federal habeas corpus review, the petition must be "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The only question before us is whether the requirement of class attendance amounts to "custody" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Although appellant is not subject to incarceration, the custody requirement of section 2254 may be met even if the petitioner is not physically confined. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239-40, 83 S.Ct. 373, 375-76, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). A petitioner on parole, for example, is "in custody" within the meaning of section 2254, because the parole restrictions "significantly restrain petitioner's liberty to do those things which in this country free men are entitled to do." Id. at 243, 83 S.Ct. at 377. Similarly, a petitioner who is released on his own recognizance pending appeal is also "in custody" due to "the conditions imposed on petitioner as the price of his release." Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 348-49, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 1573, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973). See also Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 300-02, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) ( ); Lefkowitz v. Mewsome, 420 U.S. 283, 286, 95 S.Ct. 886, 888, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975) ( ). Therefore, to satisfy the custody requirement, petitioner must demonstrate that he is subject to a significant restraint upon his liberty "not shared by the public generally." Jones, 371 U.S. at 240, 83 S.Ct. at 376.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians
... ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Second Circuit ... Argued ... In this case of first impression, the district court (Richard J ... 1843 through 1847 and S.J. Res. 87. 113 CONG. REC ... Circuit Court of the First Circuit Through Huddy, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) ... ...
-
Tavares v. Whitehouse
...restrain[ed] [his] liberty to do those things which free persons in the United States are entitled to do." Dow v. Circuit Court, 995 F.2d 922, 922-23 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).23 In these instances, the petitioner was "in custody" for purposes of habeas jurisdiction because the restraint......
-
76 Hawai'i 360, State v. Nakata
... ... District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, and ... fundamental right applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, ... ...
-
Wilson v. Flaherty
...on individual liberty for which habeas corpus relief is reserved.” (quotation marks omitted)); with Dow v. Circuit Court of First Circuit, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (custody requirement satisfied when petitioner sentenced to 14 hours of attendance at alcohol rehabilitati......
-
Banishing Habeas Jurisdiction: Why Federal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Hear Tribal Banishment Actions
...v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95, 96 (7th Cir. 1984) (one-year suspension of driver's license not enough for "custody"), with Dow v. Cir. Ct., 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993) (fourteen hours of alcohol rehab program enough for "custody," because it required petitioner's physical presence at a part......
-
Confining Custody
...of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 894-95 (2d Cir. 1996) (banishment from tribal land); Dow v. Circuit Court of First Circuit ex rel. Huddy, 995 F.2d 922, 922-23 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (mandatory fourteen-hour alcohol rehabilitation program); Sammons v. Rodgers, 785 F.2d 1343, 1345 (5th ......
-
Williamson v. Gregoire: How Much Is Enough? the Custody Requirement in the Context of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Statutes
...Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 350 (1973). 87. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 571 (1885). 88. Dow v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 89. Id. at 923. 90. Id. 91. Id. 92. Barry v. Bergen County Probation Department, 128 F.3d 152, 162 (3d Cir. 1997). 93. Id. at......