# Eccarius v. Mendocino County Social Services > District Court, N.D. California · October 13, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073211 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** October 13, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073211 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073211. Public record. Not legal advice.