Gerald Weaver v. Dareld Kerby, Warden, 955 F.2d 49, 10th Cir. (1992)
Gerald Weaver v. Dareld Kerby, Warden, 955 F.2d 49, 10th Cir. (1992)
Gerald Weaver v. Dareld Kerby, Warden, 955 F.2d 49, 10th Cir. (1992)
2d 49
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Gerald Weaver appeals an order of the district court dismissing his
petition for habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On appeal,
Weaver contends that the deduction of money from his inmate account renders
him "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2254. We exercise jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
Because habeas corpus relief is designed to obtain release from illegal custody,
it can only be invoked where a petitioner challenges the conviction that causes
him to be in custody at the time the petition is filed. See Maleng v. Cook, 109
S.Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989). In this case, Weaver is not challenging his underlying
conviction, but rather a deduction from his inmate account, which is in the
nature of a civil fine. A fine does not deprive an individual of liberty, and,
therefore, does not render a person "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
2254. See Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d 801, 804 (1st Cir.1984); Spring v.
Caldwell, 692 F.2d 994, 996-98 (5th Cir.1982).
4
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3