Abdi v. People of the State of California

1
26-cv-67-RSH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LIBAN ABDI,
Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-67-RSH-JLB
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
On January 6, 2026, petitioner Liban Abdi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks to collaterally
attack a conviction he sustained in California Superior Court for a Vehicle Code infraction,
for which the court imposed a 30-day suspension of his driver’s license. Id. at 3. Petitioner
states that following his conviction, he has sought and been denied review in both the
California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Id.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides that upon the filing of a petition, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the
judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
//
Case 3:26-cv-00067-RSH-JLB Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-67-RSH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Applying this standard, it appears plainly from the Petition that Petitioner is not
entitled to habeas relief. Section 2254 provides that a district court shall “entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The “in custody”
requirement is jurisdictional. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). “In general,
courts hold that the … revocation of a license is merely a collateral consequence of
conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’ requirement.” Williamson v. Gregoire, 151
F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Jones v. Grant, 5 F. App’x 836, 838 (10th Cir.
2001) (holding that the “suspension or revocation of [plaintiff’s] driver’s license does not
render [him] ‘in custody’ for the purposes of § 2254”); Harts v. Indiana, 732 F.2d 95, 96–
97 (7th Cir. 1984) (“We recognize that, in our society, loss of driving privileges may entail
hardship. However, suspension of driving privileges is not the sort of severe restraint on
individual livery for which habeas corpus relief is reserved.”) (cleaned up); Westberry v.
Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624–25 (5th Cir. 1970) (“We can find no decision by the Supreme
Court nor by this circuit which would allow federal courts to take habeas corpus
jurisdiction under § 2254 when the petitioner has applied for the writ after suffering a fine
and the revocation of the right to drive on the state’s highways.”). Here, Petitioner’s license
was not revoked, but temporarily suspended; and in any event, the 30-day period of
suspension has long passed. Petitioner is not “in custody” for purposes of seeking habeas
relief, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his Petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00067-RSH-JLB Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2