The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ANTHONY CARL ECCARIUS, Case No. 22-cv-05417-HSG
8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
9 v.
10 MENDOCINO COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES, et al.
11
Respondents.
12
13 Petitioner Anthony Carl Eccarius has filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas
14 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 1. For the
15 reasons set forth below, this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED and a certificate
16 of appealability is DENIED.
17 DISCUSSION
18 I. Petition
19 The petition names as respondents Mendocino County Social Services, the National Labor
20 Relations Board, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Equal
21 Employment Opportunity Commission. Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 6-7. Petitioner alleges that Respondents
22 violated original jurisdiction, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
23 discriminated against him with respect to CFRA/FMLA-protected leave; and retaliated against
24 him. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The petition alleges the following legal claims: (1) Respondents lacked
25 “original jurisdiction in deciding [Petitioner’s] 10th Amendment U.S. Constitutional appeal for
26 releif (sic) and application of his rights;” (2) Respondents “obstructed Petitioner’s due process and
27 path to justice” by conducting investigations and reviews with bias and in poor faith;
1 offer adequate accommodation for said disability upon request, and retaliated against [Plaintiff]
2 for his grievance, complaints, and appeals;” and (4) Respondents lack “necessary and sufficient
3 authority to decide the merits of [Plaintiff’s] Weingarten claim and appeal given that [Petitioner’s]
4 10th Amendment U.S. Constitution appeal is unprecedented in nature and warrants Court review.”
5 Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7. Petitioner requests the following relief:
6 [Petitioner] requests this Court “consider a higher jurisdiction and authority to sufficiently
and accurately address his greivance (sic), complaints, concerns, and appeal such that
7 original jurisdiction exists wherein named parties are not acting with inherant (sic)
prejudice and bias toward [Petitioner’s] appeal and enumerated rights. [Petitioner] also
8 requests this Court exercise its authority to grant him compensation for lost wages and
lasting harm caused when his rights were mishandled. Lastly, [Petitioner] requests
9 Demand for Jury Trial.
10 Dkt. No. 1 at 7.
11 II. Standard of Review
12 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that a federal district court may entertain a petition for a
13 writ of habeas corpus from a petitioner who is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
14 or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). A district court considering an application
15 for writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
16 cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
17 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
18 III. Dismissal
19 This petition is DISMISSED for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction because Petitioner is
20 not in custody. The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the
21 time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c); see also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-
22 91 (1989) (“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to
23 entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation of the
24 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”) (citing to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), emphasis
25 in original). The custody requirement is jurisdictional. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238
26 (1968). Petitioner is not in the custody of the United States (or the state of California). This
27 petition is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
1 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner two copies of the Court’s
2 || civil rights complaint form.
3 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
4 The Court concludes that no “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
5 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that jurists of reason would find it
6 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
7 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
8 CONCLUSION
9 For the reasons set forth above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for
10 || lack of federal habeas jurisdiction and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk is
11 directed to send Petitioner two copies of the Court’s civil rights complaint form.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 || Dated: 10/13/2022
Abppured 3 Mbt)
5 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28