Torres

The traditional function of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of actual governmental restraint of the person. Formerly, there was a requirement of actual physical confinement. Our California Supreme Court “relaxed” this rule and designed the concept of “constructive custody” to allow a parolee, who was not actually physically confined, to prosecute the writ. (In re Marzec (1945) 25 Cal.2d 794 [ 154 P.2d 873 ]; see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Writs, § 16, pp. 619-621.) The “constructive custody” concept was not designed to afford a person the tolling of the time to file a tort claim and it would take a herculean leap in logic to “stretch” this concept to so hold. We decline the invitation.

Nicholas Torres appeals from a judgment on demurrer, dismissing his civil complaint for false imprisonment against California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Appellant claims he was falsely imprisoned when he was detained on an alleged parole violation after his parole expired by operation of law. The trial court concluded that the action was barred by the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd.…