Russell v. City of Pierre, State of S. D., 76--1065
| Decision Date | 30 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--1065,76--1065 |
| Parties | Neil Cody RUSSELL, Appellant, v. CITY OF PIERRE, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Gary R. Thomas and Terry L. Pechota, South Dakota Legal Services, Fort Thompson, S.D., for appellant.
Robert C. Riter, Jr., Pierre, S.D., for appellee.
Before LAY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Neil Cody Russell, seeks a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of an ordinance of the City of Pierre, South Dakota. The sole punishment imposed by the state trial court was a $25 fine. Petitioner alleges that the disorderly conduct ordinance is impermissibly vague and overbroad and thus constitutionally defective. The federal district court denied the petition and the subsequent application for a certificate of probable cause.
We grant the certificate of probable cause due to the important jurisdictional question involved.
We find that petitioner is not entitled to invoke the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts. The writ of habeas corpus is available only to one who is 'in custody.' 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). In order for this requirement to be met, there must be a significant restraint imposed on one's liberty. Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Harvey v. State of South Dakota, 526 F.2d 840 (8th Cir., filed Dec. 11, 1975). A fine of $25 is not a significant restraint. Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang, 509 F.2d 39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825, 96 S.Ct. 39, 46 L.Ed.2d 41 (1975); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 (5th Cir. 1970); Pueschel v. Leuba, 383 F.Supp. 576 (D.Conn.1974); Wright v. Bailey, 381 F.Supp. 924 (W.D.Va.1974).
The denial of the writ is affirmed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spring v. Caldwell
...Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 (5th Cir. 1970). Accord, Wright v. Bailey, 544 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1976); Russell v. City of Pierre, South Dakota, 530 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1976); Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang, 509 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1975); Pueschel v. Leuba, 383 F.Supp. 576 (D.Conn.1974). In Wright......
-
Hanson v. Circuit Court of First Judicial Circuit of Illinois, 78-1296
...1976), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623 (5th Cir. 1970); Russell v. City of Pierre, 530 F.2d 791 (8th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 855, 97 S.Ct. 150, 50 L.Ed.2d 131 (1976); Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang, 509 F.2d 39 (9th Cir.), Cert......
-
U.S. v. Rice, 4:04-CR-00139.
...would still be a proper vehicle for seeking relief, as well as the more conventional habeas petition. See Russell v. City Pierre, State of S.D., 530 F.2d 791, 792 (8th Cir.1976) (stating that in order for the "in custody" requirement of § 2241(c) to be met, "there must be a significant rest......
-
Schifter v. United States
...not constitute sufficient custody for habeas corpus jurisdiction. Wright v. Bailey, 544 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1976); Russell v. City of Pierce, 530 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1976); Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang, 509 F.2d 39 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825, 96 S.Ct. 39, 46 L.Ed.2d 41 (1975); Puesche......