Ramsey

(HC) Prince v. Ramsey

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 19, 20212:20-cv-01962California990 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID SWANK PRINCE, No. 2: 20-cv-1962 TLN KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER MICHAEL RAMSEY, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is proceeding, without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition raises two claims: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 2) violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (ECF No. 1.) On January 27, 2021, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 16.) The undersigned found that petitioner was not “in custody” under the at-issue conviction because he was not sentenced. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). In his objections, filed February 16, 2021, petitioner alleges that he has now been sentenced. (ECF No. 19.) Good cause appearing, the January 27, 2021 findings and recommendations are vacated because petitioner appears to meet the “in custody” requirement for habeas…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.